mathematics

Article
Modified Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm-Based
Single-Sensor Global MPPT for Photovoltaic Systems
Hesham Alhumade 1,2,3 , Essam H. Houssein 4, * , Hegazy Rezk 5 , Iqbal Ahmed Moujdin 2,6
and Saad Al-Shahrani 1

1 Chemical and Materials Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering, King Abdulaziz University,
Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
2 Center of Excellence in Desalination Technology, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80200,
Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
3 K. A. CARE Energy Research and Innovation Center, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
4 Faculty of Computers and Information, Minia University, Minia 61519, Egypt
5 Department of Electrical Engineering, College of Engineering in Wadi Alddawasir, Prince Sattam bin
Abdulaziz University, Wadi Alddawasir 11991, Saudi Arabia
6 Department of Mechanical Engineering, King Abdulaziz University, P.O. Box 80200,
Jeddah 21589, Saudi Arabia
* Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract: Recently, a swarm-based method called Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm (AHA) has
been proposed for solving optimization problems. The AHA algorithm mimics the unique flight
capabilities and intelligent foraging techniques of hummingbirds in their environment. In this paper,
we propose a modified version of the AHA combined with genetic operators called mAHA. The
experimental results show that the proposed mAHA improved the convergence speed and achieved
better effective search results. Consequently, the proposed mAHA was used for the first time to find
the global maximum power point (MPP). Low efficiency is a drawback of photovoltaic (PV) systems
that explicitly use shading. Normally, the PV characteristic curve has an MPP when irradiance is
uniform. Therefore, this MPP can be easily achieved with conventional tracking systems. With shad-
ows, however, the conditions are completely different, and the PV characteristic has multiple MPPs
(i.e., some local MPPs and a single global MPP). Traditional MPP tracking approaches cannot distin-
Citation: Alhumade, H.; Houssein,
guish between local MPPs and global MPPs, and thus simply get stuck at the local MPP. Consequently,
E.H.; Rezk, H.; Moujdin, I.A.;
an optimized MPPT with a metaheuristic algorithm is required to determine the global MPP. Most
Al-Shahrani, S. Modified Artificial
Hummingbird Algorithm-Based MPPT techniques require more than one sensor, e.g., voltage, current, irradiance, and temperature
Single-Sensor Global MPPT for sensors. This increases the cost of the control system. In the current research, a simple global MPPT
Photovoltaic Systems. Mathematics method with only one sensor is proposed for PV systems considering the shadow conditions. Two
2023, 11, 979. https://doi.org/ shadow scenarios are considered to evaluate the superiority of the proposed mAHA. The obtained
10.3390/math11040979 results show the superiority of the proposed single sensor based MPPT method for PV systems.
Academic Editor: Fuyuan Xiao
Keywords: modified artificial hummingbird algorithm; metaheuristics; maximum power point
Received: 4 January 2023 tracking; single sensor
Revised: 3 February 2023
Accepted: 10 February 2023 MSC: 68T99; 68U99
Published: 14 February 2023

1. Introduction
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Optimization is used to solve many problems by maximizing or minimizing objective
This article is an open access article functions. Various optimization methods are used to find the optimal solution. Metaheuris-
distributed under the terms and tic algorithms (MHs) are optimization tools in which various methods are used to increase
conditions of the Creative Commons the effectiveness of search processes [1–4]. Although it is difficult to find an exact solution
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// in most cases, algorithms can provide the optimal global solution [5].
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ In this context, MHs can be divided into two categories: stochastic and determin-
4.0/). istic methods. If the gradient is available, deterministic algorithms could be an option.

Mathematics 2023, 11, 979. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11040979 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/mathematics

Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 2 of 25

Since these different techniques are based on established computations, it can be assumed
that the optimization procedure is repeatable. Each time the algorithm is run with the
same initial conditions, the optimization path and result are identical, making the process
replicable. Stochastic methods, on the other hand, have random properties that generate
different optimization pathways, leading to different optimized solutions even if the initial
conditions are the same for each run. The main advantage of stochastic algorithms is
that they do not require gradient information. However, accessing gradient information
is becoming increasingly difficult as problems become more complex. Researchers have
developed stochastic algorithms that do not require gradient information. The category
of MHs was developed due to the advancement of stochastic techniques [6]. Some stable
MHs, including genetic algorithm (GA) [7], particle swarm optimization (PSO) [8], bee
colony optimization (BCO) [9], and differential evolution [10], have been used to solve
various optimization problems. For example, MHs have excelled in several real-world
applications, such as medicine [11,12], COVID-19 [13,14], feature selection [15,16], and
image segmentation [17], as well as combinatorial problems [18–20].
Recently, an efficient swarm-based method called artificial hummingbird algorithm
(AHA) has been proposed for solving optimization problems [21]. The source of inspiration
of AHA is to mimic the unique flight capabilities and intelligent foraging behavior of
hummingbirds in their environment. Although AHA has been used to solve various
optimization problems, AHA still suffers from some drawbacks, such as (1) fast convergence
and robust utilization of space, (2) fast convergence to the found optimal solution, (3) lack
of self-adaptation of convergence rate. The aforementioned drawbacks cause the algorithm
to fall victim to the problem of premature convergence, which leads to further problems,
such as the algorithm getting stuck in regions with local optima, which prevents it from
finding the nearest/best solutions.
In this paper, the genetic operators are combined with the original AHA algorithm
to propose a modified version called mAHA. The role of genetic operators is to drive the
solution from local to global to improve the position and enable trapping in local search,
increasing the diversity of algorithms and avoiding local solutions in the comparison
between a new and a previous solution. The mAHA was used to solve the IEEE CEC’20 test
suite for optimization testing, and the results were compared with several stable methods,
including SMA [22], HHO [23], GWO [24], WOA [25], and the original AHA [21]. The
experimental results show that the proposed mAHA achieves (1) effective search results,
(2) lower computational cost, (3) good convergence speed, (4) balanced exploration and
exploitation behavior, and (5) avoidance of local optimum.
Electric power generation has been driven by new and renewable energy sources
(RES), which have seen rapid growth in the energy industry in recent years. Their ability to
provide clean, renewable, maintenance-free, ubiquitous, and low-cost energy has increased
the popularity of renewable energy [26]. Moreover, renewables can improve the reliability
and self-healing operation of utility grids through their reconfiguration into microgrids
and nanogrids. The installed capacities of renewable energy sources are increasing rapidly
worldwide. Photovoltaic (PV) capacity will increase by 179 TWh in 2021, a 22% growth
from 2020. It accounts for 3.6% of global electricity generation [27]. PV electricity is the third
largest energy source after hydropower and wind. It is expected that PV generation will be
about 7400 TWh in 2030. Tracking the maximum power point (MPP) is very important for
increasing the efficiency of the PV system. Under normal conditions, i.e., uniform irradiance
distribution, the power-voltage characteristic has only a single MPP [28]. This MPP can be
easily extracted using conventional MPPT techniques such as incremental resistance and
hill climbing. The situation is quite different for shaded conditions. Especially for large
PV systems, the probability of the presence of shade due to nearby trees or buildings is
very high [29]. The shadow problem reduces the PV output power. It is difficult to avoid
the shading. Therefore, a bypass diode is used to mitigate the shadow and protect the PV
system. During shading, the bypass diode is on and provides an additional path to current
draw. However, during normal operation, the bypass diode is off and has no effect [30].
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 3 of 25

In summary, the power-voltage curve with shadow has some local MPP and one global
MPP. The conventional MPP tracking approaches cannot distinguish between local and
global MPPs and therefore simply stop at the local MPP. Consequently, an optimized MPPT
with a metaheuristic algorithm is required to determine the global MPP. The previous
algorithms that have been used to mitigate the shadow effect are the Marine Predator
algorithm [31], Search & Rescue algorithms [32], Group Teaching Optimization [33], and
the Firefly algorithm [34].
The disadvantage of previous techniques is that more than one sensor is needed,
e.g., voltage, current, irradiance, and temperature sensors. El-Helw et al. [35] proposed
a global MPPT method using a neural network that requires six sensors: four irradiance
sensors, voltage, and current. Moreover, the proposed method depends on the PV module
characteristics. In the same direction, Nafeh [36] proposed an MPPT method using per-
turbation and observation, which requires five sensors: two voltage sensors, two current
sensors, and one temperature sensor. Moreover, the shadow problem was not considered.
Camilo et al. [37] proposed an MPPT method based on the Monod equation. This technique
requires three sensors: current, temperature and radiation. Moreover, the shadow condition
is not considered. To fill the defined research gap, a global MPPT method with one sensor
for PV systems is proposed in this paper. For the first time, a mAHA is proposed to mitigate
the shadow and determine the global MPP in PV systems.
The contributions of the paper can be outlined as follows.
1. In this paper, an effective method called mAHA is proposed.
2. The proposed mAHA introduces the mechanisms of genetic operators (crossover and
mutation selection) to enhance AHA’s performance in increasing the diversity of the
population and avoiding local searches.
3. The proposed mAHA was adopted to address the ten global optimization tasks from
the CEC’20 test suite and was compared with other optimization algorithms and the
original AHA algorithm.
4. For the first time, a mAHA was used in the global MPPT optimization of PV systems
with a sensor.
5. The superiority of the proposed MPPT technique has been demonstrated.
The remaining sections are organized as follows: The artificial hummingbird algorithm
(AHA) is discussed in Section 2. Section 3 discusses the proposed mAHA algorithm.
Section 4 presents the evaluation results, including the CEC’20 test suite. Section 5 present
the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) application results. A brief discussion is
introduced in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 presents the conclusions and future work.

2. Artificial Hummingbird Algorithm

In this section, we explain the mathematical model of AHA, which is biologically in-
spired by the smart behavior of hummingbirds and developed to solve various optimization
problems [21]. The three basic phases of the AHA algorithm is explained below:
Food sources: The hummingbird frequently evaluates the characteristics of the sources,
such as the nectar quality/quantity of each nectar replenishment rate, the flowers, and the
last time the flowers were visited, to select a suitable source from a group of food sources.
For simplicity, it is assumed that each food source in AHA has the same type and number
of flowers—the solution vector represents the food source, and the function fitness value
represents the nectar fill rate. Accordingly, the higher the nectar fill rate, the better the
fitness value.
Hummingbirds: each hummingbird has a specific food source from which it can
only feed, so the food source and the hummingbird are constantly in the same place. The
hummingbird can register the location and nectar replenishment of a particular food source
and pass this knowledge on to other hummingbirds throughout the population. In addition,
each hummingbird could remember how long ago it last visited a particular food source.
Visit table: for different hummingbirds, the visit frequency for each food source is
recorded in the visit table and indicates how long it has been since the same hummingbird
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 4 of 25

visited a particular food source. For a hummingbird, the food source with the highest
visitation rate is prioritized for visitation. To obtain more nectar, among the food sources, a
hummingbird should visit the one that has the highest nectar replenishment rate with the
same highest visitation level. Moreover, the visitation table is updated at each iteration to
find the target food source.
Moreover, the mathematical phases of the three foraging behaviors of hummingbirds
including the following phases: (1) guided foraging, (2) territorial foraging, and (3) migrat-
ing foraging are discussed in the following subsections. In Algorithm 1, the generic AHA
structure is provided [21].

Algorithm 1: Structure of AHA.

Initialization
While stop criterion is not satisfied
Guided foraging
Territorial foraging
Migration foraging
End

2.1. The Mathematical Model of AHA Algorithm

2.1.1. Initialization Phase
The n food sources construct the population of n hummingbirds, and is initialized
randomly as defined in [38] by Equation (1):

xi = Low + r · (U p − Low) i = 1, . . . , (1)

where for d-Dim problem, the Low and U p represent the upper and lower boundaries. The
variable r is a random vector within [0, 1], and the ith food source position is represented
by xi which is the solution of a specific problem. Accordingly, the visit table is defined
by Equation (2):

0 if i 6= j
VTi,j = i = 1, . . . , n; j = 1, . . . , n (2)
null i=j

where for i = j, VTi,j = null refers to hummingbird is taking food from its particular food
source; for i 6= j, VTi,j = 0 refers to jth food source that has just been visited by the ith
hummingbird in this current iteration.

2.1.2. Guided Foraging Phase

By incorporating a direction-switching vector into the AHA algorithm, three flight ca-
pabilities are used as follows: omnidirectional, diagonal, and axial flights are appropriately
described during foraging. This vector is used to regulate the availability of one or more
directions in a dimension space. Axial flight shows that hummingbirds can fly along any
coordinate axis, while diagonal flight, which is determined by any two of three axes, allows
hummingbirds to fly from one corner of the rectangle to the other.
To be specific, all three flight patterns can be adapted to d-Dim, where axial flying is
formulated by Equation (3) as:

(i ) 1 if i = randi([1, d])
D = i = 1, . . . , d (3)
0 else

Moreover, diagonal flight is formulated by Equation (4) as:


1 if i = P( j), j ∈ [1, k], P = randperm (k ), k ∈ [2, dr1 · (d − 2)e + 1]
D (i ) = i = 1, . . . , d (4)
0 else
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 5 of 25

Then, omnidirectional flight is formulated by Equation (5) as:

D (i) = 1 i = 1, . . . , d (5)

where randi([1, d]) produces randomly an integer within 1 and d, a random integer per-
mutation within 1 and k is generated by the randperm(k), and r1 is a random number
within (0, 1]. Diagonal flight in a d-Dim is placed within a hyperrectangle that is bound by
any 2 to d-1coordinate axes.
Moreover, the mathematical modelling for the guided foraging behavior and candidate
food source is defined as follows:

vi (t + 1) = xi,tar (t) + a · D · ( xi (t) − xi,tar (t)) (6)

a ∼ N (0, 1) (7)
where the ith food source position at time t is represented by xi (t). The target food source
at ith hummingbird is represented by xi,tar (t), the variable a is a guided factor with mean
equal 0 and standard deviation equal 1.
Accordingly, the position of ith food source is updated as follows:
(
xi ( t ) f ( xi (t)) ≤ f (vi (t + 1))
x i ( t + 1) = (8)
vi (t + 1) f ( xi (t)) > f (vi (t + 1))

where the function fitness value is indicated by f (·). The AHA’s guided foraging method
is presented in Algorithm 2 [21].

Algorithm 2: Guided foraging strategy of AHA.

For i th hummingbird from 1 to n
Perform Equation (6)
If f (vi (t + 1)) < f ( xi (t))
x i ( t + 1) = v i ( t + 1)
For j th food source from 1 to n( j 6= tar, i )
Visit_table (i, j) = Visit_table (i, j) + 1
End
Visit_table (i, tar ) = 0
For j th food source from 1 to n
Visit_table ( j, i ) = max ( Visit_table ( j, l )) + 1
l ∈n and l 6= j
End
Else
For j th food source from 1 to n( j 6= tar , i )
Visit_table (i, j) = Visit_table (i, j) + 1
End
Visit_table (i, tar ) = 0
End
End

2.1.3. Territorial Foraging Phase

The local search within territorial foraging phase and the candidate food source is
defined by the mathematical formula:

v i ( t + 1) = x i ( t ) + b · D · x i ( t ) (9)

b ∼ N (0, 1) (10)
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 6 of 25

where the territorial factor is a normal distribution N (0, 1), represented by b with mean
equal 0 and standard deviation equal 1. The territorial foraging phase of AHA algorithm is
reported in Algorithm 3 [21].

Algorithm 3: Territorial foraging strategy of AHA.

For i th hummingbird from 1 to n
Perform Equation (9)
If f (vi (t + 1)) < f ( xi (t))
x i ( t + 1) = v i ( t + 1)
For j th food source from 1 to n( j 6= i )
Visit_table (i, j) = Visit_table (i, j) + 1
End
For j th food source from 1 to n
Visit_table ( j, i ) = max l ∈n and l 6= j (Visit_table ( j, l )) + 1
End
Else
For j th food source from 1 to n( j 6= i )
Visit_table (i, j) = Visit_table (i, j) + 1
End
End
End

2.1.4. Migration Foraging Phase

Randomly, from the source, the obtained migration foraging with the lowest nectar-
refilling rate to a new one is defined as:

xwor (t + 1) = Low + r · (U p − Low ) (11)

where the food source is represented by xwor in the population with the lowest nectar-
refilling rate. Moreover, the migration foraging phase of AHA algorithm is reported in
Algorithm 4 [21].

Algorithm 4: Migration foraging strategy of AHA.

If mod(t, 2n) == 0
Perform Equation (11)
For j th food source from 1 to n( j 6= wor )
Visit_table (wor,j) = Visit_table (wor,j) + 1
End
For j th food source from 1 to n
Visit_table ( j, wor) = maxl ∈n and l 6= j (Visit_table ( j, l )) + 1
End
End

In AHA, the following formula is used to define the migration coefficient in relation to
population size as follows:
M = 2n (12)

3. The Proposed mAHA Algorithm

In this section, the AHA algorithm is combined with genetic operators with AHA
algorithm to build a new version called mAHA. To be specific, the AHA includes three
stages: (1) Search agents are controlled; (2) search agents are produced for the hybrid
method; (3) the new population based on the previous step is updated.
In the update step, all AHA search agents control each position. Here, the genetic
operators produce more populations to avoid local optimality and affect AHA positions.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 7 of 25

Creating a new hybrid search agent requires creating a new hybrid individual from the
current AHA as shown in Equation (13).

Xhybrid = α × Xi + (1 − α) × Si (13)

where α value between [0, 1] indicates AHA weight, Xi is AHA position, and Si represents
AHA individual position based on the operators, so this Equation (13) indicates the effects
of them. The search agent is updated using a greedy selection to select the optimal candidate
solution. To improve the quality of solutions and performance of the proposed algorithm.
The reasons that motivate us to present an alternative version of AHA called mAHA
algorithm are described in the following subsections.

3.1. Shortcomings of the Original AHA

Although the original AHA algorithm exhibits rapid convergence during the explo-
ration of the optimization problem space, where the solutions in each iteration move rapidly
toward the optimal solution found at the current time, this solution may not be the best for
the entire problem space. Moreover, the convergence of the algorithm is not self-adjusted
to encourage the proposed solutions to explore the remaining regions in the problem space,
but the convergence rate of AHA is not self-adjusted, which causes the algorithm to suffer
from the problem of premature convergence. This leads to other problems, such as the
algorithm getting stuck in regions with local optima and not being able to identify the
closest/best solutions. For complex optimization problems, the algorithm AHA, like other
metaheuristic optimization methods, is unable to adequately explore the entire search space
in its current state [2].
Therefore, to address these drawbacks of AHA, this paper proposes an alternative
version called modified artificial hummingbird algorithm (mAHA) by integrating the
genetic operator’s techniques. Genetic operators control the solution from local to global
using Equations (15) and (20) to enhance the position and permit the trapping in local
search, thereby increasing the variety of algorithms and avoiding local solutions compared
between a new and previous one. For more diversity, genetic algorithm operators are used
to integrate two mutant vectors, namely y Mut and z Mut , to generate a new child wCross as
described in Equation (19). Offspring fitness value: y Mut , z Mut , and wCross based on the
selection operator Equation (20) were compared to get the best prey p x . To identify the
best candidate solution, the search space was boosted by exploring new regions, so several
positions are updated by Equations (19) and (20). The stop condition is the maximum
iterations that permit for evaluating the performance of the mAHA algorithm. Upon
completing the mAHA process, the best position is returned. Algorithm 5 demonstrates
how the best solution is proposed by calculating the objective function using Equation (14)
for many new populations. mAHA fitness ( f obj) is indicated as defined as:

f obj = α + β (14)

where β = α and fobj > T, where T is the greatest iteration. However, neither the algorithm
performance nor the optimization problem space is affected.
Additionally, plots of convergence curves in most testing functions show a slow diver-
gence of the original AHA during exploitation at most function evaluations, demonstrating
that the approach is trapping in local rather than global regions.

3.2. Architecture of the Proposed mAHA Algorithm

The main goal of this research is to propose an efficient alternative version of the
original AHA to solve the problems mentioned in the previous section. However, it
improves the algorithm AHA, by increasing the exploration time and maintaining diversity
using the genetic operator strategy.
The mathematical modeling and steps of the mAHA are formulated in Algorithm 5.
The algorithm starts with a random starting population of size 2N. In the modified mAHA,
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 8 of 25

the solutions of the population are evolved first, followed by the individual phase from the
original AHA. At each iteration, a linear population reduction is applied to manage the
population diversity, and the same approach is repeated until the optimization is complete.
The following subsections explain the genetic operators.

Genetic Operators
Several algorithms use evolutionary operators, especially the two basic algorithms
namely, differential evolution and genetic algorithms. Some examples of such operators
are mutation as Bit inversion, crossover as single-point crossover and selection.
Mutation: The mutation operation is built using the results of AHA tasks, as the solu-
tion goal Position. A number between 0 and 1 is produced at random for each component.
The target agent element position is considered when the value reaches the mutation rate
(zeta). If this value is less than the mutation rate (zeta), the old vector is replaced with a
component of the y or z vectors. The mutation operator is determined by applying the
following formula: where jth dimension is known by lb j and ub j , rv have D components
generated by randomly between (0, 1).
( (
position if rand 1 ≥ζ position if rand 2 ≥ζ
yMut = and zMut = (15)
y else z else

ζ = T1 ;

Where : (16)
y = position − xli
( (
position if ρ1 ≥ ζ position if ρ2 ≥ ζ
yMut = and zMut = (17)
y else z else

ζ = Tt ;


Where : y =| (position) − xli | (18)
z = y − rv


Crossover: The crossover is the combination of two individuals to produce more

variety. To generate a new offspring wCross , a linear combination with random integers tau
and tau’ is used.
wCross = τ ∗ y Mut + 1 − τ 0 ∗ z Mut and τ 6= τ 0


(19)
Selection: The selection type used in AHA is a greedy selection, which is based on
differential evolution. When functions of evolution (mutation and crossover) are accessed,
the offspring are created. The child and parent’s performance are then compared to
determine which is the best. Finally, if the parent’s performance is good, then they have a
chance to stay in the population. The rule that defines greedy selection is as follows:
  i 
y Mut if fit (y Mut ) < fit P( x






  i 
i
p x +1 = z Mut if fit (z Mut ) < fit P( x (20)

 

   i
wCross if fit (wCross ) < fit P( x x



where p(x) is the current position and (pix+1 ) is the next position.
Eventually, the pseudo code of the proposed mAHA algorithm is given in Algorithm 5.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 9 of 25

Algorithm 5: The proposed mAHA.

1- Initialization phase based on Equations (1) and (2)
2- While stop criterion is not satisfied
3- Calculate the fitness of all individuals position ← the best search agent.
4- Calculate guided foraging using Algorithm 2
5- Calculate territorial foraging using Algorithm 3
6- Calculate migration foraging using Algorithm 4
7- t = t + 1
8- End While
9- Return the best criteria

4. Experimental Stage 1: Statistical Results for CEC’20 Test Suite

Several metaheuristic algorithms (MHs) are applied to solve different optimization
problems such as adaptive gaining sharing knowledge [39], differential evolution through
Bayesian [40], adapted evolutionary algorithm [41], and the hybrid gaining-sharing knowl-
edge [42]. In this study, the IEEE CEC’20 test suite [43] is one of the proper test metrics,
as it tests the optimizer performance over ten various search spaces, the performance of
the proposed mAHA is assessed over the CEC’20 test suite on Dim 10 and Dim 20. The
experimental results of the proposed mAHA on the CEC’20 test suite is compared to the
results obtained from set of the state-of-the-art optimization algorithms, namely the slime
mold algorithm (SMA) [22], Harris hawks optimization (HHO) [23], grey wolf optimizer
(GWO) [24], whale optimization algorithm (WOA) [25], and the original AHA [21].

4.1. Statistical Results Analysis

Further, the statistical metrics includes the average, and the standard deviation (STD)
methods are applied for the best-so-far solutions reached in each run. Tables 1 and 2 exhibit
these statistical results for the proposed mAHA algorithm and the other competitors for
each CEC’20 test suite with the Dim 10 and Dim 20 respectively. As the CEC’20 test
suite are minimization problems, the best results are the lowest values. The introduced
mAHA approach outperformed the other comparative algorithms in solving most of the
CEC’20 test suite in terms of mean and STD. Consequently, the proposed mAHA algorithm
achieved the first rank in the Friedman mean rank-sum test. Moreover, Table 3 reports
the computation time that has been obtained by the proposed mAHA and the competitor
algorithms for 30 runs with Dim 10 and Dim 20 on the CEC’20 test suite.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 10 of 25

Table 1. The statistical results on the CEC’20 test suite that have been obtained by the proposed mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim 10.

SMA GWO WOA HHO AHA mAHA

Functions
Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD
F1 9.34 × 103 3.93 × 103 3.80 × 107 1.08 ×108 2.75 ×106 5.04 ×106 6.14 ×105 2.58 ×105 5.64 ×101 5.45E × 101 1.14 × 10−1 5.49 × 101
F2 1.58 × 103 1.58 × 102 1.60 × 103 1.74 × 102 2.26 × 103 3.85 × 102 2.03 × 103 2.69 × 102 1.46 × 101 4.19 × 101 1.24 × 101 1.95 × 101
F3 7.24 × 102 4.89 × 10 7.32 × 102 1.27 × 101 7.66 × 102 1.47 × 101 7.89 × 102 1.93 × 101 5.61 × 101 1.56 × 101 1.03 × 101 1.18 × 101
F4 1.90 × 103 3.95 × 10−1 1.90 × 103 2.46 × 101 1.91 × 103 2.77 × 101 1.91 × 103 2.75 × 101 3.77 × 101 4.77 × 10−1 4.29 × 101 5.12 × 10−2
F5 7.14 × 103 5.13 × 103 8.17 × 103 5.51 × 103 2.15 × 105 2.38 × 105 6.00 × 104 4.42 × 104 2.25 × 101 4.32 × 101 1.31 × 101 4.32 × 101
F6 1.60 × 103 3.08 × 10−1 1.61 × 103 2.41 × 101 1.61 × 103 8.51 × 101 1.61 × 103 9.13 × 101 1.00 × 101 5.20 × 101 1.75 × 101 3.55 × 101
F7 2.52 × 103 3.31 × 102 8.00 × 103 4.41 × 103 5.66 × 104 5.03 × 104 2.03 × 104 2.66 × 104 1.38 × 101 4.83 × 101 1.19 × 101 3.06 × 101
F8 2.31 × 103 2.30 × 103 2.31 × 103 2.30 × 103 2.37 × 103 2.31 × 103 2.31 × 103 2.31 × 103 6.59 × 101 4.50 × 101 3.85 × 101 4.44 × 101
F9 2.76 × 103 6.12 × 10 2.74 × 103 1.15 × 101 2.76 × 103 5.75 × 101 2.81 × 103 1.24 × 102 1.38 × 101 3.27 × 101 5.62 × 101 2.86 × 101
F10 2.93 × 103 2.61 × 101 2.94 × 103 1.49 × 101 2.95 × 103 1.18 × 101 2.92 × 103 2.44 × 101 2.48 × 101 2.17 × 101 1.32 × 101 1.16 × 101
Friedman 6.2 2.3 4.7 6.8 3.1 1.2
Rank 5 2 4 6 3 1

Table 2. The statistical results on the CEC’20 test suite have been obtained by the proposed mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim 20.

SMA GWO WOA HHO AHA mAHA

Functions
Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD Mean STD
F1 9.54 × 103 3.96 ×103 3.83 × 107 1.09 ×108 2.78 ×106 5.09 ×106 6.18 ×105 2.65 ×105 5.74 ×101 5.55 ×101 1.24 × 10−1 5.52 × 101
F2 1.70 × 103 1.61 × 102 1.65 × 103 1.77 × 102 2.29 × 103 3.89 × 102 2.08 × 103 2.78 × 102 1.56 × 101 4.29 × 101 1.29 × 101 2.05 × 101
F3 7.44 × 102 4.92 × 101 7.36 × 102 1.29 × 101 7.68 × 102 1.49 × 101 7.92 × 102 2.03 × 101 5.68 × 101 1.66 × 101 1.09 × 101 1.28 × 101
F4 2.10 × 103 3.98 × 10−1 1.93 × 103 2.48 × 101 1.96 × 103 2.79 × 101 1.98 × 103 2.85 × 101 3.78 × 101 4.80 × 10−1 4.33 × 101 5.52 × 10−2
F5 7.34 × 103 5.18 × 103 8.19 × 103 5.56 × 103 2.18 × 105 2.40 × 105 6.09 × 104 4.47 × 104 2.28 × 101 4.42 × 101 1.38 × 101 4.42 × 101
F6 1.80 × 103 3.128 × 10−1 1.66 × 103 2.48 × 101 1.66 × 103 8.58 × 101 1.69 × 103 9.19 × 101 1.04 × 101 5.33 × 101 1.79 × 101 3.65 × 101
F7 2.72 × 103 3.378 × 102 8.03 × 103 4.46 × 103 5.68 × 104 5.10 × 104 2.08 × 104 2.65 × 104 1.40 × 101 4.90 × 101 1.28 × 101 3.10 × 101
F8 2.51 × 103 2.34 × 103 2.36 × 103 2.36 × 103 2.39 × 103 2.30 × 103 2.39 × 103 2.37 × 103 6.62 × 101 4.62 × 101 3.99 × 101 4.45 × 101
F9 2.90 × 103 6.188 × 101 2.77 × 103 1.18 × 101 2.79 × 103 5.85 × 101 2.91 × 103 1.29 × 102 1.43 × 101 3.38 × 101 5.77 × 101 2.90 × 101
F10 3.13 × 103 2.68 × 101 2.97 × 103 1.52 × 101 3.09 × 103 1.20 × 101 2.99 × 103 2.49 × 101 2.52 × 101 2.29 × 101 1.44 × 101 1.30 × 101
Friedman 6.4 2.6 4.9 7.1 3.4 1.4
Rank 5 2 4 6 3 1
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 11 of 25

Table 3. The CPU time that has been obtained by the proposed mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim 10 and Dim 20 on the CEC’20 test suite.

SMA GWO WOA HHO AHA mAHA

Functions
Dim 10 Dim 20 Dim 10 Dim 20 Dim 10 Dim 20 Dim 10 Dim 20 Dim 10 Dim 20 Dim 10 Dim 20
F1 6.24 × 101 6.63 × 101 6.40 ×101 6.77 × 101 6.20 ×101 6.34 ×101 6.24 × 101 6.48 ×101 6.25 × 101 6.50 ×101 6.35 × 101 6.98 × 101
F2 3.38 × 101 3.50 × 101 3.40 × 101 3.60 × 101 3.30 × 101 3.55 × 101 3.28 × 101 3.45 × 101 3.41 × 101 3.55 × 101 3.56 × 101 3.70 × 101
F3 3.98 × 101 4.10 × 101 4.08 × 101 4.20 × 101 4.02 × 101 4.30 × 101 4.03 × 101 4.20 × 101 4.11 × 101 4.40 × 101 4.20 × 101 4.50 × 101
F4 7.30 × 10−1 7.40 × 10−1 7.20 × 10−1 7.50 × 10−1 7.10 × 10−1 7.40 × 10−1 7.15 × 10−1 7.40 × 10−1 7.29 × 10−1 7.40 × 10−1 7.40 × 10−1 7.60 × 10−1
F5 4.24 × 101 4.43 × 101 4.34 × 101 4.54 × 101 4.20 × 101 4.42 × 101 4.20 × 101 4.44 × 101 4.34 × 101 4.54 × 101 4.40 × 101 4.64 × 101
F6 8.07 × 101 8.17 × 101 8.27 × 101 8.47 × 101 8.17 × 101 8.27 × 101 8.02 × 101 8.19 × 101 8.20 × 101 8.47 × 101 8.47 × 101 8.67 × 101
F7 4.34 × 101 4.54 × 101 4.37 × 101 4.57 × 101 4.30 × 101 4.44 × 101 4.30 × 101 4.54 × 101 4.37 × 101 4.50 × 101 4.50 × 101 4.74 × 101
F8 4.18 × 101 4.30 × 101 4.20 × 101 4.34 × 101 4.24 × 101 4.44 × 101 4.29 × 101 4.44 × 101 4.30 × 101 4.48 × 101 4.40 × 101 4.60 × 101
F9 8.40 × 101 8.60 × 101 8.43 × 101 8.67 × 101 8.47 × 101 8.70 × 101 8.35 × 101 8.57 × 101 8.45 × 101 8.70 × 101 8.55 × 101 8.77 × 101
F10 3.71 × 101 3.81 × 101 3.69 × 101 3.82 × 101 3.66 × 101 3.81 × 101 3.61 × 101 3.77 × 101 3.69 × 101 3.83 × 101 3.74 × 101 3.85 × 101
 F4 7.30 × 10 7.40 × 10 7.20 × 10 7.50 × 10 7.10 × 10 7.40 × 10 7.15 × 10 7.40 × 10 7.29 × 10 7.40 × 10 7.40 × 10 7.60 × 10
F5 4.24 × 10 4.43 × 10 4.34 × 10 4.54 × 10 4.20 × 10 4.42 × 10 4.20 × 10 4.44 × 10 4.34 × 10 4.54 × 10 4.40 × 10 4.64 × 10
F6 8.07 × 10 8.17 × 10 8.27 × 10 8.47 × 10 8.17 × 10 8.27 × 10 8.02 × 10 8.19 × 10 8.20 × 10 8.47 × 10 8.47 × 10 8.67 × 10
F7 4.34 × 10 4.54 × 10 4.37 × 10 4.57 × 10 4.30 × 10 4.44 × 10 4.30 × 10 4.54 × 10 4.37 × 10 4.50 × 10 4.50 × 10 4.74 × 10
F8 4.18 × 10 4.30 × 10 4.20 × 10 4.34 × 10 4.24 × 10 4.44 × 10 4.29 × 10 4.44 × 10 4.30 × 10 4.48 × 10 4.40 × 10 4.60 × 10
F9 8.40 × 10 8.60 × 10 8.43 × 10 8.67 × 10 8.47 × 10 8.70 × 10 8.35 × 10 8.57 × 10 8.45 × 10 8.70 × 10 8.55 × 10 8.77 × 10
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 12 of 25
F10 3.71 × 10 3.81 × 10 3.69 × 10 3.82 × 10 3.66 × 10 3.81 × 10 3.61 × 10 3.77 × 10 3.69 × 10 3.83 × 10 3.74 × 10 3.85 × 10

4.2. Convergence Performance Analysis

4.2. Convergence Performance Analysis
The performance of the proposed mAHA and other competitors evaluated on the
The performance of the proposed mAHA and other competitors evaluated on the
CEC’20
CEC’20 test testsuite,
suite,the
theresults
resultsare
areexplained
explainedgraphically
graphicallywith
withthe
theconvergence
convergencecurves
curvesasas
shownininFigure
shown Figure1.1.According
Accordingtotothetheconvergence
convergenceplots,
plots,the
theproposed
proposedmAHAmAHAreached
reacheda a
stable point over most of the test methods. From convergence plots the fast
stable point over most of the test methods. From convergence plots the fast convergence convergence
referstotothe
refers theoptimal
optimal solution.
solution. Thus,
Thus, thethe introduced
introduced mAHA
mAHA method
method considers
considers an applica-
an applicable
ble approach to tackle different optimization problems that need fast computing
approach to tackle different optimization problems that need fast computing i.e., the online i.e., the
online optimization
optimization problems.problems.

Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 23

(a) F1 (b) F2 (c) F3

(d) F4 (e) F5 (f) F6

(g) F7 (h) F8 (i) F9

(j) F10
Figure1.1.The
Figure Theconvergence
convergencecurves
curveson
onthe
theCEC’20
CEC’20test
testsuite
suitehave
havebeen
beenobtained
obtainedbybythe
theproposed
proposed
mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim10.
mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim10.

4.3. Boxplot Behavior Analysis

Boxplots are employed to exhibit the data distribution. The distribution reflects the
local minimum of test functions. Furthermore, boxplots consider an effective presenting
method for data distributions in quartiles, where the obtained maximum and minimum
data points are represented by the Boxplot whisker’s edges. Furthermore, the higher the
level of data agreement, the narrower the boxplot, Figure 2. Boxplot introduces the results
for ten functions, Dim10. It is observed that the mAHA algorithm reaches the best results
 (j) F10
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 13 of 25
Figure 1. The convergence curves on the CEC’20 test suite have been obtained by the proposed
mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim10.

4.3.
4.3. Boxplot
Boxplot Behavior
Behavior Analysis
Analysis
Boxplots
Boxplots are employed to
are employed to exhibit
exhibit the
the data
data distribution.
distribution. The
The distribution
distribution reflects
reflects the
the
local
local minimum of test functions. Furthermore, boxplots consider an effective presenting
minimum of test functions. Furthermore, boxplots consider an effective presenting
method
method for for data
data distributions
distributions in in quartiles,
quartiles, where
where the
the obtained
obtained maximum
maximum and and minimum
minimum
data
data points are represented by the Boxplot whisker’s edges. Furthermore, the higher the
points are represented by the Boxplot whisker’s edges. Furthermore, the higher the
level
level of
of data
data agreement,
agreement, thethe narrower
narrower the
the boxplot,
boxplot, Figure
Figure 2.
2. Boxplot
Boxplot introduces
introduces the
the results
results
for
for ten
ten functions,
functions, Dim10.
Dim10. It It is
is observed
observed that
that the
the mAHA
mAHA algorithm
algorithm reaches
reaches the
the best
best results
results
compared to the other algorithms.
compared to the other algorithms.

Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 23

(a) F1 (b) F2 (c) F3

(d) F4 (e) F5 (f) F6

(g) F7 (h) F8 (i) F9

(j) F10
Figure 2. The box-plot curves on the CEC’20 test suite that have been obtained by the proposed
Figure 2. The box-plot curves on the CEC’20 test suite that have been obtained by the proposed
mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim10.
mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim10.
4.4.
4.4. Qualitative
Qualitative Metrics
Metrics Analysis
Analysis
The
The optimizer solutions behavior
optimizer solutions behaviorreflects
reflectsaastable
stableanalysis
analysisabout
aboutthe
the algorithm
algorithm per-
perfor-
formance and behavior through the search process. The qualitative analysis of
mance and behavior through the search process. The qualitative analysis of the proposedthe pro-
posed mAHA introduced in Figure 3, shows the agent’s behaviors, 3D views of the func-
tions, average fitness history, search history, and convergence curves.
 (j) F10
Figure 2. The box-plot curves on the CEC’20 test suite that have been obtained by the proposed
mAHA and the competitor algorithms for 30 runs with Dim10.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 14 of 25
4.4. Qualitative Metrics Analysis
The optimizer solutions behavior reflects a stable analysis about the algorithm per-
formance and behavior through the search process. The qualitative analysis of the pro-
mAHA introduced in Figure 3, shows the agent’s behaviors, 3D views of the functions,
posed mAHA introduced in Figure 3, shows the agent’s behaviors, 3D views of the func-
average fitness history, search
tions, average history,
fitness and
history, convergence
search curves. curves.
history, and convergence

Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 23

Figure 3. Cont.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 15 of 25
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 23

Figure 3. The qualitative

Figure metrics on the CEC’20
3. The qualitative metrics test suite
on the havetest
CEC’20 been
suiteobtained byobtained
have been the proposed mAHA.
by the proposed
mAHA.
The next points are worthwhile from the visualization curves such as convergence,
The next points are worthwhile from the visualization curves such as convergence,
boxplots, and qualitative analysis:
boxplots, and qualitative analysis:
(1) Search history:
(1) The
Searchsecond
history:column
The second in column
Figurein3Figure
shows the agents’
3 shows search
the agents’ searchhistory
history from
from
the beginning tothe thebeginning to the lastFurthermore,
last iteration. iteration. Furthermore, the problem
the problem search
search spaceisisformed
space formed
on a counter line,on aitcounter line,
reflects it reflects
the gradient the gradient
from blue fromto blue
redto color
red color lines
lines indicating aa
indicating
higher fitness value. The introduced mAHA approach can reach the positions with
higher fitness value. The introduced mAHA approach can reach the positions with
the higher fitness values, according to the search history.
the higher fitness values,
(2) Average according
fitness to the
history: The thirdsearch
columnhistory.
in Figure 3 demonstrates the average fit-
(2) Average fitness history:
ness value.TheFromthird column
this figure, the in Figure
agents’ 3 demonstrates
overall the average
behavior is represented by the fitness
fitness
value. From this history as well
figure, theasagents’
their contribution
overallinbehavior
the optimization process.
is represented by the fitness
(3) Accordingly, the performance of mAHA approach is assessed against the other com-
history as well as their contribution in the optimization process.
petitors on CEC’20 test suite. The performance of the proposed mAHA is evaluated
(3) Accordingly, theusing
performance of mAHA
both quantitative approach
and qualitative is assessed
indicators for mAHA. against the other
According com-
to Tables 1–
petitors on CEC’20 test suite. The performance of the proposed mAHA
3, the proposed mAHA method has reached near/optimal results for convergence is evaluated
and the highest
using both quantitative fitness value.
and qualitative The graphical
indicators boxplot and
for mAHA. minimum
According toconvergence
Tables 1–3,
curve are shown in Figures 1 and 2 respectively.
the proposed mAHA method has reached near/optimal results for convergence and These graphical representations
demonstrate the stable performance of the proposed mAHA algorithm as introduced
the highest fitness value.3, The
in Figure whichgraphical
indicate thatboxplot and minimum
the introduced method is convergence
dependable for acurve are
real situ-
shown in Figures 1 and
ation 2 respectively.
and are drawn from theThese graphical representations demonstrate
test metrics.
the stable performance of the proposed mAHA algorithm as introduced in Figure 3,
5. Stage
which indicate that2:the
Maximum Power method
introduced Point Tracking
is dependable for a real situation and are
drawn from the test metrics.

5. Stage 2: Maximum Power Point Tracking

The PV system is shown in Figure 4. It includes 36 photovoltaic panels forming
6 arrays, DC-DC converter, controller, and 480 V battery bank. The specification of the PV
system is presented in Table 4.
 PV current at MPP 7.61 A
PV voltage at MPP 26.3 V
No. of arrays 6
No. of series PV panels per array 3
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 No. of strings in array 2 16 of 25

Battery bank voltage 480 V

Figure 4. Schematic diagram for PV system with MPPT.

Figure 4. Schematic diagram for PV system with MPPT.
Table 4. Specifications of the PV system.
The duty cycle is the key to control the DC-DC converter to boost the PV power. It
may be defined as follows:
Item Specification
Maximum power of the panel 1 200 W
PV current at MPP 𝑉 = × 𝑉 7.61 A (21)
PV voltage at MPP 1−𝐷 26.3 V
where 𝑉 and 𝑉 No. of
represent the PV voltage and battery voltage6respectively.
arrays
No. of series PV
The PV voltage may panels per arrayas follows:
be defined 3
No. of strings in array 2
Battery bank voltage 𝑉 = 𝑉 (1 − 𝐷) 480 V (22)
where D is the duty cycle.
The duty cycle
Referring to theisabove
the key to control
relation, withthe DC-DC
constant converter
battery to boost
voltage, thevoltage
the PV PV power. It
is pro-
may be defined as follows:
portional with (1−D). Therefore, as an alternative of utilizing voltage sensor, it can be us-
1
ing the value of (1−D) to replace V the
battPV
= voltage.
×V Consequently,
PV the objective function
(21)
1−D
required to be maximum can be defined as follows.
where Vpv and Vbatt represent the PV voltage and battery voltage respectively.
The PV voltage mayf (be = I PV × (as
D)defined D) subjected to 0 ≤ D ≤ 1
1 −follows: (23)

where IPV denotes PV current, and the

VPVduty
= Vcycle
batt (1 (D)
− Dis) selected to be the decision variable
(22)
during the optimization process.
where D is the duty cycle.
Referring to the above relation, with constant battery voltage, the PV voltage is
proportional with (1 − D). Therefore, as an alternative of utilizing voltage sensor, it can be
using the value of (1 − D) to replace the PV voltage. Consequently, the objective function
required to be maximum can be defined as follows.

f ( D ) = IPV × (1 − D ) subjected to 0 ≤ D ≤ 1 (23)

where IPV denotes PV current, and the duty cycle (D) is selected to be the decision variable
during the optimization process.
Two shadow scenarios have been considered to assess the suggested mAHA global
MPPT technique. Figure 5 and Table 5 show the PV characteristics of the two scenarios.
Altering shadow pattern is conducted to change the location of global MPP to assess the
consistency of the suggested mAHA.
 Two shadow scenarios have been considered to assess the suggested mAHA global
MPPT technique. Figure 5 and Table 5 show the PV characteristics of the two scenarios.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 17 ofthe
Altering shadow pattern is conducted to change the location of global MPP to assess 25
consistency of the suggested mAHA.

Figure
Figure 5.
5. The
The details
detailsof
ofshadow
shadowpatterns.
patterns.(a)(a)P-V
P-Vcurve first
curve scenario,
first (b)(b)
scenario, I-VI-V
curve firstfirst
curve scenario, (c)
scenario,
P-V curve second scenario, and (d) I–V curve second scenario.
(c) P-V curve second scenario, and (d) I–V curve second scenario.

Table 5.
Table 5. Specification
Specification of
of shadow
shadow patterns
patterns and
and data
data at
at MPP.
MPP.

Irradiance Intensity (W/m2 2) Six Series-Connected PV Arrays Data at MPP

Irradiance Intensity (W/m ) Six Series-Connected PV Arrays Data at MPP
Pattern Array 1 Array 2 Array 3 Array 4 Array 5 Array 6 Current (A) Voltage (V) Power (W) Duty
Pattern Array 1 Array 2 Array 3 Array 4 Array 5 Array 6 Current (A) Voltage (V) Power (W) Duty
1st scenario 1000 900 700 400 300 200 11.13 245 2725.9 0.4896
1st scenario 1000 900 700 400 300 200 11.13 245 2725.9 0.4896
2nd scenario 900 600 500 400 300 200 6.38 332.28 2119.4 0.3077
2nd scenario 900 600 500 400 300 200 6.38 332.28 2119.4 0.3077

To allow a fair comparison, both the number of populations (5) and iterations (20)
wereTo allow
kept a fair comparison,
constants both the
for all methods number of populations
considered. During the (5) and iterations
optimization (20) were
process, the
kept constants for all methods considered. During the optimization process, the
product of PV current and (1 − D) was used as the objective function to be maximized. The product of
PV current and (1 − D) was used as the objective function to be maximized.
decision variable is the duty cycle of DC-DC. To prove the consistency of the proposed The decision
variable
mAHA, the is the duty algorithms
studied cycle of DC-DC. To prove30the
were executed consistency
times. of theanalysis
The statistical proposed mAHA,
of the con-
the studied algorithms were executed 30 times. The statistical analysis of the
sidered algorithms is shown in Table 6. The details of the 30 runs for both shadow scenar- considered
algorithms
ios are shown is shown
in Table in7.Table 6. The details of the 30 runs for both shadow scenarios are
shown in Table 7.
Table 6. Statistical assessments of considered algorithms for both shadow scenarios.
Table 6. Statistical assessments of considered algorithms for both shadow scenarios.
SMA HHO GWO WOA AHA mAHA
SMA HHO GWO WOA AHA mAHA
1st Scenario
Best cost function 5.678486 1st Scenario
5.678486 5.678486 5.678486 5.678486 5.678486
Best cost function
Maximum PV power (W) 5.678486
2725.673 5.678486
2725.673 5.678486
2725.673 5.678486
2725.673 5.678486
2725.673 5.678486
2725.673
Maximum PV Worst
power (W) 4.307119
2725.673 4.555636
2725.673 4.307109
2725.673 4.307124
2725.673 4.30633
2725.673 5.659904
2725.673
Mean
Worst 5.632443
4.307119 5.603838
4.555636 5.412551
4.307109 5.63269
4.307124 5.30468
4.30633 5.676989
5.659904
Mean 5.632443 5.603838 5.412551 5.63269 5.30468 5.676989
Average PV power (W) 2067.417 2186.705 2067.413 2067.419 2067.039 2716.754
STD 0.246108 0.277208 0.482421 0.246152 0.516302 0.004308
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 18 of 25

Table 6. Cont.

SMA HHO GWO WOA AHA mAHA

Median 5.678466 5.678475 5.67825 5.67848 5.659086 5.678435
Variance 0.060569 0.076844 0.23273 0.060591 0.266568 1.86 × 10−5
Average time (s) 69.39628 169.6144 70.38237 70.86129 74.29785 73.42117
2md Scenario
Best cost function 4.415491 4.415491 4.415491 4.415491 4.415491 4.415491
Maximum PV power (W) 2027.256 2027.74 2027.735 2027.742 2017.267 2117.477
Worst 4.223449 4.224458 4.224447 4.224463 4.202639 4.41141
Mean 4.363836 4.402683 4.383512 4.40273 4.37282 4.415039
Average PV power (W) 2094.641 2113.288 2104.086 2113.31 2098.954 2119.219
STD 0.08421 0.047632 0.071131 0.047644 0.076916 0.000996
Median 4.415443 4.415484 4.415365 4.415483 4.41405 4.415467
Variance 0.007091 0.002269 0.00506 0.00227 0.005916 9.92 × 10−7
Average time (s) 69.3757 159.2509 69.37294 69.5756 73.37224 73.80433

Table 7. Cost function values during optimization process.

SMA HHO GWO WOA AHA mAHA SMA HHO GWO WOA AHA mAHA
1st Shadow Scenario 2nd Shadow Scenario
1 5.6785 5.6761 5.671 5.6784 5.6543 5.6785 4.4154 4.4155 4.2245 4.4155 4.239 4.4138
2 4.3071 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6783 4.4154 4.4155 4.415 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155
3 5.6767 5.6674 5.6784 4.3071 5.6785 5.6785 4.4154 4.4153 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155
4 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6781 5.6785 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.2245 4.4132 4.4151
5 5.6782 5.6784 4.3071 5.6785 4.5697 5.6771 4.2244 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.2242 4.4155
6 5.6783 5.6778 5.6718 5.6785 5.6765 5.6777 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4155
7 5.6781 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6783 5.6783 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155
8 5.6731 5.6785 5.6771 5.6785 5.6783 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4153 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155
9 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 4.4733 5.6785 4.4155 4.4155 4.2245 4.2245 4.4154 4.4154
10 5.6785 5.6785 4.5696 5.6785 5.678 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155
11 5.6782 5.6785 4.5697 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 4.4155 4.2245 4.4144 4.4155 4.4155 4.4143
12 5.6785 5.6785 5.6782 5.6785 5.6785 5.6784 4.4153 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4137 4.4155
13 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 4.5647 5.6783 4.4153 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4118 4.4155
14 5.6785 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.5697 5.6599 4.4155 4.2245 4.415 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155
15 5.6785 4.5556 5.6764 5.6785 5.6776 5.6785 4.2245 4.4155 4.4152 4.4154 4.4154 4.4155
16 5.6785 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6578 5.6749 4.2244 4.4155 4.4151 4.4155 4.4144 4.4114
17 5.6785 5.6785 5.6783 5.6785 5.6604 5.6784 4.2244 4.4146 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155
18 5.6784 5.6785 5.6783 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4119 4.4154
19 5.6785 5.6785 5.6759 5.6785 4.3063 5.6785 4.3963 4.4152 4.4155 4.4155 4.4153 4.4154
20 5.6784 5.6785 5.6784 5.6766 5.3566 5.6785 4.4152 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155 4.3922 4.4119
21 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 5.6146 5.6767 4.2243 4.4155 4.2244 4.4155 4.2095 4.4155
22 5.6785 5.678 5.6783 5.6782 5.5155 5.6785 4.4155 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155 4.4084 4.4155
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 23

Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 19 of 25

Average PV power (W) 2067.417 2186.705 2067.413 2067.419 2067.039 2716.754
STD 0.246108 0.277208 0.482421 0.246152 0.516302 0.004308
Median Table5.678466
7. Cont. 5.678475 5.67825 5.67848 5.659086 5.678435
Variance 0.060569 0.076844 0.23273 0.060591 0.266568 1.86 × 10−5
SMA timeHHO
Average (s) GWO69.39628WOA AHA
169.6144 mAHA SMA
70.38237 HHO
70.86129GWO WOA
74.29785 AHA mAHA
73.42117
1st Shadow Scenario 2md Scenario 2nd Shadow Scenario
23 Best 5.6783 5.6783
cost function 4.6416 5.6785
4.415491 4.5661
4.415491 5.67854.415491
4.2234 4.4153
4.4154914.2245 4.415491
4.4154 4.4155 4.4155
4.415491
Maximum
24 PV
5.6785 power (W)
5.6784 2027.256
5.6778 5.6784 2027.74
5.6785 5.67852027.735
4.4155 2027.7424.4155 2017.267
4.4155 4.4154 2117.477
4.2245 4.4154
25 Worst 4.5778
5.6785 4.223449
5.6783 5.6785 4.224458 5.67844.224447
5.6722 4.4155 4.2244634.4155 4.202639
4.4155 4.4153 4.4064.41141
4.4155
26 Mean
5.678 5.6785 4.363836
5.6784 5.6785 4.402683
5.6785 5.67844.383512
4.4155 4.40273
4.4153 4.4155 4.37282
4.4155 4.415039
4.2026 4.4146
Average PV power (W) 2094.641 2113.288 2104.086 2113.31 2098.954 2119.219
27 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.4584 5.6624 4.2245 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.3614 4.4155
STD 0.08421 0.047632 0.071131 0.047644 0.076916 0.000996
28 5.6778 5.6782 4.5696 5.6785 5.6741 5.6782 4.2244 4.4155 4.2245 4.4155 4.4113 4.4155
Median 4.415443 4.415484 4.415365 4.415483 4.41405 4.415467
29 5.6785
Variance 5.6781 5.6751 5.6785
0.007091 4.5697
0.002269 5.6785 0.00506
4.4155 4.4152
0.002274.4155 0.005916
4.4155 4.4154
9.92 × 4.4152
10−7
30 Average
5.6784time5.6785
(s) 4.569769.3757
5.6784 4.5498
159.2509 5.677 69.37294
4.4155 4.4155
69.57564.4154 73.37224
4.4155 4.2245 4.4146
73.80433

The
The two
two shadow
shadow scenarios
scenarios are
are shown
shown inin Table 7, where
Table 7, the proposed
where the mAHA has
proposed mAHA has the
the
best performance compared
best performance compared to other algorithms.
to other algorithms. ForFor the
the first
first scenario,
scenario, the
the average
average PVPV
power values varied between 2716.754 W and 2067.039 W. mAHA achieves
power values varied between 2716.754 W and 2067.039 W. mAHA achieves the maximum the maximum
PV powerofof2716.754
PV power 2716.754W,W, which
which is matched
is matched by HHO
by HHO (2186.705
(2186.705 W).minimum
W). The The minimumPV powerPV
power of 2067.039 W is achieved by AHA. Thus, the proposed mAHA
of 2067.039 W is achieved by AHA. Thus, the proposed mAHA increases the PV power by increases the PV
power by 31.3% compared
31.3% compared to theAHA.
to the original original
TheAHA.
valuesThe
of values
STD varyof STD
fromvary from to
0.004308 0.004308 to
0.516302.
0.516302.
The The STD
minimum minimum STD is
of 0.004308 of achieved
0.004308 by is mAHA,
achievedfollowed
by mAHA, by SMAfollowed by SMA
(0.246108). The
(0.246108).
worst valueThe worst
of STD of value of STD
0.516302 of 0.516302
is achieved is achieved
by AHA. For the by AHA.shadow
second For thescenario,
second
shadow scenario,
the average the average
PV power PV power
values vary values vary
from 2119.219 W to from 2119.219
2094.641 W to achieves
W. mAHA 2094.641 the
W.
mAHA achieves the maximum PV power of 2119.219 W, followed
maximum PV power of 2119.219 W, followed by WOA (2113.31 W). The minimum PV by WOA (2113.31 W).
The minimum
power PV W
of 2094.641 power of 2094.641
is achieved W is The
by SMA. achieved
valuesbyofSMA. The values
STD vary of STD vary
from 0.000996 from
to 0.08421.
0.000996
The to 0.08421.
minimum STD of The minimum
0.000996 STD of by
is achieved 0.000996
mAHA, is followed
achieved by by HHO
mAHA, followedThe
(0.047632). by
HHO (0.047632).
worst value of STDThe ofworst value
0.08421 of STD of
is obtained by0.08421
SMA. is obtained by SMA.
The mean cost function variation during optimization process for first and second
shadow scenarios are presented in Figures
Figures 66 and
and 77 respectively.
respectively.

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Mean
Mean cost
cost function
function variation
variation during
during optimization process for
optimization process for first
first shadow
shadow scenario.
scenario.
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 24

Mathematics
Mathematics2023,
2023,11,
11,x979
FOR PEER REVIEW 1820ofof23
25

17 5.6785 5.6785 5.6783 5.6785 5.6604 5.6784 4.2244 4.4146 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155
18 5.6784 5.6785 5.6783 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4119 4.4154
19 5.6785 5.6785 5.6759 5.6785 4.3063 5.6785 4.3963 4.4152 4.4155 4.4155 4.4153 4.4154
20 5.6784 5.6785 5.6784 5.6766 5.3566 5.6785 4.4152 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155 4.3922 4.4119
21 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 5.6146 5.6767 4.2243 4.4155 4.2244 4.4155 4.2095 4.4155
22 5.6785 5.678 5.6783 5.6782 5.5155 5.6785 4.4155 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155 4.4084 4.4155
23 5.6783 5.6783 4.6416 5.6785 4.5661 5.6785 4.2234 4.4153 4.2245 4.4154 4.4155 4.4155
24 5.6785 5.6784 5.6778 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.2245 4.4154
25 5.6785 4.5778 5.6783 5.6785 5.6722 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4153 4.406 4.4155
26 5.678 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 5.6784 4.4155 4.4153 4.4155 4.4155 4.2026 4.4146
27 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.4584 5.6624 4.2245 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.3614 4.4155
28 5.6778 5.6782 4.5696 5.6785 5.6741 5.6782 4.2244 4.4155 4.2245 4.4155 4.4113 4.4155
29 5.6785 5.6781 5.6751 5.6785 4.5697 5.6785 4.4155 4.4152 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4152
30 5.6784 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.5498 5.677 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.2245 4.4146
Figure
Figure7.7.Mean
Meancost
costfunction
functionvariation
variationduring
duringoptimization
optimizationprocess
processfor
forsecond
secondshadow
shadowscenario.
scenario.
Table 8 shows the results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Figure 8 shows
Table Table
7. Cost8function values
shows the during
results optimization
of the analysis of process.
variance (ANOVA), and Figure 8 shows the
the corresponding ranking. If the value of F is greater than the p value, the null hypothesis
corresponding ranking. If the value of F is greater than the p value, the null hypothesis is
SMA HHO GWO is true. WOA
The data collected
AHA mAHA show that SMA the p-value
HHO is muchGWO lower than
WOA the F-value,
AHA indicating
mAHA
true. The data collected show that the p-value is much lower than the F-value, indicating a
a significant
1st Shadow difference between the results. As shown
Scenario 2nd inShadow
Figure 8, the mAHA can outper-
Scenario
significant difference between the results. As shown in Figure 8, the mAHA can outperform
1 5.6785 5.6761 form the
5.671 other commonly
5.6784 used methods.
5.6543used5.6785 The mAHA4.2245 has the 4.4155
smallest range of variance
the other commonly methods.4.4154
The mAHA 4.4155 has the smallest range of 4.239
variance4.4138
and the
2 4.3071 and
5.6785 5.6785 the largest mean fitness (maximization problem), indicating its resilience and accu-
largest5.6785 5.6785(maximization
mean fitness 5.6783 4.4154
problem),4.4155 4.415
indicating 4.4155 and
its resilience 4.4155 4.4155
accuracy.
racy.
3 5.6767 5.6674 5.6784 4.3071 5.6785 5.6785 4.4154 4.4153 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155
Table 8. ANOVA results for first shadow scenario.
4 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6781 5.6785
Table 8. ANOVA results for first shadow 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.2245 4.4132 4.4151
scenario.
5 5.6782 5.6784 4.3071 Source 5.6785 4.5697 df 5.6771 SS4.2244 4.4155 MS 4.4154 F 4.4155 4.2242 p-Value4.4155
6 5.6783 Source
5.6778 5.6718 Columns5.6785 5.67655 df 5.6777 3.3452 SS
4.4155 4.4155 MS4.4155 4.4154 F p-Value
4.4155 4.4155
0.6690 5.56 8.8039 × 10 −5
7 5.6781 Columns
5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6783 5 5.6783 3.3452 0.6690 5.56
4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 8.8039 × 10 −5

Error
Error 174 20.9198 0.1202
8 5.6731 5.6785 5.6771 5.6785 5.6783 1745.6784 20.91984.4155 4.4155 0.1202
4.4153 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155
Total
Total 179 179 24.2651
24.2651
9 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 4.4733 5.6785 4.4155 4.4155 4.2245 4.2245 4.4154 4.4154
10 5.6785 5.6785 4.5696 5.6785 5.678 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155
11 5.6782 5.6785 4.5697 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 4.4155 4.2245 4.4144 4.4155 4.4155 4.4143
12 5.6785 5.6785 5.6782 5.6785 5.6785 5.6784 4.4153 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4137 4.4155
13 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 4.5647 5.6783 4.4153 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.4118 4.4155
14 5.6785 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.5697 5.6599 4.4155 4.2245 4.415 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155
15 5.6785 4.5556 5.6764 5.6785 5.6776 5.6785 4.2245 4.4155 4.4152 4.4154 4.4154 4.4155
16 5.6785 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6578 5.6749 4.2244 4.4155 4.4151 4.4155 4.4144 4.4114
17 5.6785 5.6785 5.6783 5.6785 5.6604 5.6784 4.2244 4.4146 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155
18 5.6784 5.6785 5.6783 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4119 4.4154
19 5.6785 5.6785 5.6759 5.6785 4.3063 5.6785 4.3963 4.4152 4.4155 4.4155 4.4153 4.4154
20 5.6784 5.6785 5.6784 5.6766 5.3566 5.6785 4.4152 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155 4.3922 4.4119
21 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 5.6146 5.6767 4.2243 4.4155 4.2244 4.4155 4.2095 4.4155
22 5.6785 5.678 5.6783 5.6782 5.5155 5.6785 4.4155 4.4154 4.4152 4.4155 4.4084 4.4155
23 5.6783 5.6783 4.6416 5.6785 4.5661 5.6785 4.2234 4.4153 4.2245 4.4154 4.4155 4.4155
24 5.6785 5.6784 5.6778 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 4.4155 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.2245 4.4154
25 5.6785 4.5778 5.6783 5.6785
Figure8. ANOVA
8.ANOVA 5.6722 5.6784
rankingfor
for 4.4155
firstshadow
shadow 4.4155 4.4155 4.4153 4.406
scenario. 4.4155
Figure ranking first scenario.
26 5.678 5.6785 5.6784 5.6785 5.6785 5.6784 4.4155 4.4153 4.4155 4.4155 4.2026 4.4146
27 5.6785 5.6785 5.6785 AA5.6785 Tukey Honestly
Tukey Honestly
5.4584 Significant
5.6624 Difference
Significant 4.2245
Difference (Tukey
4.4155
(Tukey HSD)
4.4155
HSD) post hochoc
4.4155
post analysis was performed
4.3614
analysis 4.4155
was per-
28 5.6778 5.6782 4.5696 to support
5.6785 the ANOVA
5.6741 results.
5.6782 The findings
4.2244 are
4.4155 shown
4.2245 in Figure
4.4155 9. The mAHA
4.4113 has the
4.4155
formed to support the ANOVA results. The findings are shown in Figure 9. The mAHA
29 5.6785 5.6781 5.6751 greatest mean fitness. After the mAHA, the4.4152
WAO and SMA provided good results.
has the5.6785 4.5697fitness.
greatest mean 5.6785 4.4155
After the mAHA, the WAO 4.4155
and SMA4.4155 4.4154
provided good4.4152
results.
30 5.6784 5.6785 4.5697 5.6784 4.5498 5.677 4.4155 4.4155 4.4154 4.4155 4.2245 4.4146
Mathematics 2023,
Mathematics 2023, 11, x
x FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 20 of
of 24
Mathematics 2023,11,
11, 979 20 21 of2425

Figure
Figure9.
Figure 9.9.Tukey
Tukeytest
Tukey testfor
test forfirst
for firstshadow
first shadowscenario.
shadow scenario.
scenario.

Table99shows
Table showsthe
theANOVA
ANOVAtest testresults
resultsfor
forthe
thesecond
secondcase,
case,and
andFigure
Figure1010shows
showsthe
the
ranking. The obtained results show that the p-value
corresponding ranking. The obtained results show that the p-value is smaller than thethe
corresponding is smaller than F
F value, indicating a significant difference between the outcomes. As shown in Figure 10,
value, indicating a significant difference between the outcomes. As shown in Figure 10,
the mAHA may outperform the other commonly used method. The mAHA has the
the mAHA may outperform the other commonly used method. The mAHA has the small-
smallest variance range and the greatest mean fitness (maximization problem), indicating
est variance range and the greatest mean fitness (maximization problem), indicating its
its resilience and accuracy.
resilience and accuracy.
Table 9. ANOVA results for the second shadow scenario.
Table
Table 9.
9. ANOVA
ANOVA results
results for
for the
the second
second shadow
shadow scenario.
scenario.
Source df SS MS p-Value
Source df SS MS FF p-Value
Columns 5 0.0592 0.0118 3.04 0.0118
Columns 5 0.0592 0.0118 3.04 0.0118
Error
Error 174
174 0.6782
0.6782 0.0039
0.0039
Total
Total 179
179 0.7374
0.7374

Figure 10.
Figure10.
Figure ANOVA ranking
ANOVAranking
10.ANOVA for
rankingfor the
forthe second
thesecond shadow
secondshadow scenario.
shadowscenario.
scenario.

To support the ANOVA results for this case, a Tukey Honestly Significant Difference
To support the ANOVA results for this case, a Tukey Honestly Significant Difference
(Tukey HSD) post hoc analysis was performed. The findings are shown in Figure 11. Like
(Tukey HSD) post hoc analysis was performed. The findings are shown in Figure 11. Like
the previous case, the mAHA has the greatest mean fitness. After the mAHA, the WAO
and HHO provided good results.
Mathematics 2023, 11, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 24

Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 the previous case, the mAHA has the greatest mean fitness. After the mAHA, the WAO
22 of 25
and HHO provided good results.

Figure 11. Tukey test for the second shadow scenario.

Figure 11. Tukey test for the second shadow scenario.
6. Discussion
6. Discussion
The aim of this study is to propose an effective optimization method for solving
the The aim of thisproblem
optimization study isand
to propose an effective
finding the optimization
global maximum method
power point for solving
(MPP). the
In many
optimization problem and finding the global maximum power point
occurrences, the proposed mAHA method achieved better or similar results. (MPP) . In many
occurrences, the proposed
The proposed mAHA mAHA
methodmethod achieved
provides better ormerits:
the following similar results.
1. The proposed mAHA method provides the following merits:
mAHA is well able to resolve global optimization issues based on the CEC’22 test
1. suite. is
mAHA mAHA generates
well able optimization
to resolve solutions with
global optimization better
issues based fitness values
on the CEC’22 than the
test
othermAHA
suite. competitor algorithms
generates as shown
optimization in Tableswith
solutions 1–3. better fitness values than the
2. The competitor
other AHA algorithm is combined
algorithms as shown withingenetic
Tables operators
1–3. to enhance the convergence
2. ability of the mAHA method is achieved as demonstrated
The AHA algorithm is combined with genetic operators to enhance in Figuresthe1convergence
and 2.
3. The proposed
ability of the mAHA mAHA was used
method for the as
is achieved first time to find the
demonstrated global maximum
in Figures 1 and 2. power
3. point
The (MPP),mAHA
proposed includeswas 36used
photovoltaic panels
for the first time forming 6 arrays,
to find the DC-DC converter,
global maximum power
controller,
point (MPP),and 480 V battery
includes bank.
36 photovoltaic panels forming 6 arrays, DC-DC converter,
4. Table 6 shows
controller, and 480theVresults
batteryofbank.
the analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Figure 8 shows
4. the corresponding ranking. As
Table 6 shows the results of the analysis shown inofFigures
variance8–11, the mAHA
(ANOVA), andcan outperform
Figure 8 shows the
other commonly used methods. The mAHA has the smallest range
the corresponding ranking. As shown in Figures 8, 9, 10, and 11, the mAHA can out- of variance and the
largest mean fitness (maximization problem), indicating its
perform the other commonly used methods. The mAHA has the smallest range of resilience and accuracy.
5. The obtained
variance and the results show
largest thefitness
mean superiority of the proposed
(maximization single
problem), sensor-based
indicating MPPT
its resili-
method for
ence and accuracy.PV systems. The scalability analysis demonstrated the robustness and
5. flexibility of the proposed mAHA method.
The obtained results show the superiority of the proposed single sensor-based MPPT
Along with
method for PVadvantages, the scalability
systems. The proposed mAHA
analysisalso has some limitations,
demonstrated which
the robustness andare
detailed below:
flexibility of the proposed mAHA method.
1. Along
Despite eminent
with applications,
advantages, AHA is
the proposed still attributed
mAHA for itslimitations,
also has some slow convergence and
which are
detailed stagnancy
below: issues when employed on high-dimensional problems.
2. The obtained solutions generated by mAHA may change each time it is run because it
1. Despite eminent applications, AHA is still attributed for its slow convergence and
is an optimization strategy based on randomization. As a result, there is no assurance
stagnancy issues when employed on high-dimensional problems.
that the features subset chosen in one run will be present in another.
2. The obtained solutions generated by mAHA may change each time it is run because
3. The performance of the proposed mAHA method on complex and high dimensional
it is an optimization strategy based on randomization. As a result, there is no assur-
problems may be worse according to the several mutations.
ance that the features subset chosen in one run will be present in another.
3.7. Conclusions
The performance of the proposed mAHA method on complex and high dimensional
problems may be worse according to the several mutations.
A modified version of the artificial hummingbird algorithm (AHA) has been proposed
in this paper. It introduces the mechanisms of genetic operators (crossover and mutation
7. Conclusions
selection) to enhance AHA’s performance in increasing the diversity of the population and
avoiding local searches. After demonstration the superiority of mAHA, it has been used
for first time to mitigate the shadow condition and extracting the global maximum power
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 23 of 25

point (MPP) for photovoltaic (PV) system. The proposed MPP tracking (MPPT) technique
needs only a single current sensor. Therefore, the cost of the controller will be reduced.
Two shadow scenarios are used to evaluate the proposed single-sensor MPPT technique.
For the first scenario, the average PV power values fluctuated between 2716.754 W and
2067.039 W. mAHA achieves the maximum PV power of 2716.754 W flowed by HHO
(2186.705 W). The minimum PV power of 2067.039 W is obtained by AHA. Therefore, the
proposed mAHA increased the PV power by 31.3% compared to the original AHA. For
the second shadow scenario, the average PV power values fluctuated between 2119.219 W
and 2094.641 W. mAHA achieves the maximum PV power of 2119.219 W flowed by WOA
(2113.31W). The minimum PV power of 2094.641 W is obtained by SMA. The STD values
varied between 0.000996 and 0.08421. According to the excellent efficiency obtained, the
proposed mAHA can be applied in several real-world applications, such as object tracking,
calculating solar cell parameters, electrical applications, hyperparameter optimization, and
image segmentation.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, E.H.H., H.R. and I.A.M.; Methodology, E.H.H. and H.R.;
Software, E.H.H. and H.R.; Validation, I.A.M. and S.A.-S.; Formal analysis, H.A., E.H.H., H.R. and
S.A.-S.; Investigation, H.R. and S.A.-S.; Resources, H.A., I.A.M. and S.A.-S.; Data curation, H.A. and
I.A.M.; Writing—original draft, H.A., E.H.H., H.R., I.A.M. and S.A.-S.; Writing—review & editing,
H.A., E.H.H., H.R., I.A.M. and S.A.-S.; Visualization, E.H.H. and H.R.; Supervision, E.H.H. and H.R.;
Project administration, H.A.; Funding acquisition, H.A. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research work was funded by the Deputyship for Research & Innovation, Ministry
of Education in Saudi Arabia through the project number (IFPRC-78-135-2020) and King Abdulaziz
University, DSR, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments: The authors extend their appreciation to the Deputyship for Research & Inno-
vation, Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia for funding this research work through the project
number (IFPRC-78-135-2020) and King Abdulaziz University, DSR, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Houssein, E.H.; Mahdy, M.A.; Shebl, D.; Manzoor, A.; Sarkar, R.; Mohamed, W.M. An efficient slime mould algorithm for solving
multi-objective optimization problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 187, 115870. [CrossRef]
2. Singh, N.; Houssein, E.H.; Singh, S.; Dhiman, G. Hssahho: A novel hybrid salp swarm-harris hawks optimization algorithm for
complex engineering problems. J. Ambient. Intell. Humaniz. Comput. 2022, 97, 1–37.
3. Houssein, E.H.; Gad, A.G.; Wazery, Y.M.; Suganthan, P.N. Task scheduling in cloud computing based on meta-heuristics: Review,
taxonomy, open challenges, and future trends. Swarm Evol. Comput. 2021, 62, 100841. [CrossRef]
4. Houssein, E.H.; Mahdy, M.A.; Blondin, M.J.; Shebl, D.; Mohamed, W.M. Hybrid slime mould algorithm with adaptive guided
differential evolution algorithm for combinatorial and global optimization problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 174, 114689.
[CrossRef]
5. Houssein, E.H.; Mahdy, M.A.; Fathy, A.; Rezk, H. A modified Marine Predator Algorithm based on opposition based learning for
tracking the global MPP of shaded PV system. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 183, 115253. [CrossRef]
6. Lu, S.; Wang, C.; Fan, Y.; Lin, B. Robustness of building energy optimization with uncertainties using deterministic and stochastic
methods: Analysis of two forms. Build. Environ. 2021, 205, 108185. [CrossRef]
7. Forrest, S. Genetic algorithms. ACM Comput. Surv. 1996, 28, 77–80. [CrossRef]
8. Eberhart, R.; Kennedy, J. Particle swarm optimization. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks,
Perth, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1995; Volume 4, pp. 1942–1948.
9. Teodorović, D. Bee colony optimization (BCO). In Innovations in Swarm Intelligence; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2009;
pp. 39–60.
10. Storn, R.; Kenneth, P. Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces.
J. Glob. Optim. 1997, 11, 341–359. [CrossRef]
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 24 of 25

11. Houssein, E.H.; Abdelkareem, D.A.; Emam, M.M.; Hameed, M.A.; Younan, M. An efficient image segmentation method for skin
cancer imaging using improved golden jackal optimization algorithm. Comput. Biol. Med. 2022, 149, 106075. [CrossRef]
12. Houssein, E.H.; Emam, M.M.; Ali, A.A.; Suganthan, P.N. Deep and machine learning techniques for medical imaging-based
breast cancer: A comprehensive review. Expert Syst. Appl. 2021, 167, 114161. [CrossRef]
13. Houssein, E.H.; Emam, M.M.; Ali, A.A. Improved manta ray foraging optimization for multi-level thresholding using COVID-19
CT images. Neural Comput. Appl. 2021, 33, 16899–16919. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Houssein, E.H.; Abohashima, Z.; Elhoseny, M.; Mohamed, W.M. Hybrid quantum-classical convolutional neural network model
for COVID-19 prediction using chest X-ray images. J. Comput. Des. Eng. 2022, 9, 343–363. [CrossRef]
15. Houssein, E.H.; Oliva, D.; Çelik, E.; Emam, M.M.; Ghoniem, R.M. Boosted sooty tern optimization algorithm for global
optimization and feature selection. Expert Syst. Appl. 2023, 213, 119015. [CrossRef]
16. Houssein, E.H.; Hosney, M.E.; Mohamed, W.M.; Ali, A.A.; Younis, E.M. Fuzzy-based hunger games search algorithm for global
optimization and feature selection using medical data. Neural Comput. Appl. 2022, 1–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Emam, M.M.; Houssein, E.H.; Ghoniem, R.M. A modified reptile search algorithm for global optimization and image segmentation:
Case study brain MRI images. Comput. Biol. Med. 2023, 152, 106404. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
18. Hashim, F.A.; Hussain, K.; Houssein, E.H.; Mabrouk, M.S.; Al-Atabany, W. Archimedes optimization algorithm: A new
metaheuristic algorithm for solving optimization problems. Appl. Intell. 2021, 51, 1531–1551. [CrossRef]
19. Houssein, E.H.; Çelik, E.; Mahdy, M.A.; Ghoniem, R.M. Self-adaptive Equilibrium Optimizer for solving global, combinatorial,
engineering, and Multi-Objective problems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2022, 195, 116552. [CrossRef]
20. Houssein, E.H.; Saad, M.R.; Hashim, F.A.; Shaban, H.; Hassaballah, M. Lévy flight distribution: A new metaheuristic algorithm
for solving engineering optimization problems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2020, 94, 103731. [CrossRef]
21. Zhao, W.; Wang, L.; Mirjalili, S. Artificial hummingbird algorithm: A new bio-inspired optimizer with its engineering applications.
Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng. 2022, 388, 114194. [CrossRef]
22. Li, S.; Chen, H.; Wang, M.; Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S. Slime mould algorithm: A new method for stochastic optimization. Future
Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 111, 300–323. [CrossRef]
23. Heidari, A.A.; Mirjalili, S.; Faris, H.; Aljarah, I.; Mafarja, M.; Chen, H. Harris hawks optimization: Algorithm and applications.
Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 97, 849–872. [CrossRef]
24. Mirjalili, S.; Mirjalili, S.M.; Lewis, A. Grey wolf optimizer. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2014, 69, 46–61. [CrossRef]
25. Mirjalili, S.; Andrew, L. The whale optimization algorithm. Adv. Eng. Softw. 2016, 95, 51–67. [CrossRef]
26. Krupnov, Y.A.; Krasilnikova, V.G.; Kiselev, V.; Yashchenko, A.V. The Contribution of Sustainable and Clean Energy to the
Strengthening of Energy Security. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 10, 2505. [CrossRef]
27. Zsiborács, H.; Pintér, G.; Vincze, A.; Baranyai, N.H.; Mayer, M.J. The reliability of photovoltaic power generation scheduling in
seventeen European countries. Energy Convers. Manag. 2022, 260, 115641. [CrossRef]
28. Karmouni, H.; Chouiekh, M.; Motahhir, S.; Qjidaa, H.; Jamil, M.O.; Sayyouri, M. A fast and accurate sine-cosine MPPT algorithm
under partial shading with implementation using arduino board. Clean. Eng. Technol. 2022, 9, 100535. [CrossRef]
29. Bhukya, L.; Kedika, N.R.; Salkuti, S.R. Enhanced Maximum Power Point Techniques for Solar Photovoltaic System under Uniform
Insolation and Partial Shading Conditions: A Review. Algorithms 2022, 15, 365. [CrossRef]
30. Boghdady, T.A.; Kotb, Y.E.; Aljumah, A.; Sayed, M.M. Comparative Study of Optimal PV Array Configurations and MPPT under
Partial Shading with Fast Dynamical Change of Hybrid Load. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2937. [CrossRef]
31. Zafar, M.H.; Khan, N.M.; Mirza, A.F.; Mansoor, M. Bio-inspired optimization algorithms based maximum power point tracking
technique for photovoltaic systems under partial shading and complex partial shading conditions. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 309, 127279.
[CrossRef]
32. Zafar, M.H.; Khan, N.M.; Mirza, A.F.; Mansoor, M.; Akhtar, N.; Qadir, M.U.; Khan, N.A.; Moosavi, S.K.R. A novel meta-heuristic
optimization algorithm based MPPT control technique for PV systems under complex partial shading condition. Sustain. Energy
Technol. Assess. 2021, 47, 101367.
33. Zafar, M.H.; Al-shahrani, T.; Khan, N.M.; Mirza, A.F.; Mansoor, M.; Qadir, M.U.; Khan, M.I.; Naqvi, R.A. Group teaching optimization
algorithm based MPPT control of PV systems under partial shading and complex partial shading. Electronics 2020, 9, 1962. [CrossRef]
34. Huang, Y.-P.; Chen, X.; Ye, C.-E. A hybrid maximum power point tracking approach for photovoltaic systems under partial
shading conditions using a modified genetic algorithm and the firefly algorithm. Int. J. Photoenergy 2018, 7598653. [CrossRef]
35. El-Helw, H.M.; Magdy, A.; Marei, M.I. A Hybrid Maximum Power Point Tracking Technique for Partially Shaded Photovoltaic
Arrays. IEEE Access 2017, 5, 11900–11908. [CrossRef]
36. El-Shafy, K.A.; Nafeh, A. An effective and safe charging algorithm for lead-acid batteries in PV systems. Int. J. Energy Res. 2011,
35, 733–740.
37. Camilo, J.C.; Guedes, T.; Fernandes, D.A.; Melo, J.; Costa, F.; Filho, A.J.S. A maximum power point tracking for photovoltaic
systems based on Monod equation. Renew. Energy 2019, 130, 428–438. [CrossRef]
38. Zhou, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, K.; Kang, L.; Peng, F.; Wang, L.; Pang, J. Hybrid genetic algorithm method for efficient and robust
evaluation of remaining useful life of supercapacitors. Appl. Energy 2020, 260, 114169. [CrossRef]
39. Mohamed, A.W.; Hadi, A.A.; Mohamed, A.K.; Awad, N.H. Evaluating the performance of adaptive gaining sharing knowledge
based algorithm on CEC 2020 benchmark problems. In Proceedings of the 2020 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation
(CEC), Glasgow, UK, 19–24 July 2020; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 1–8.
Mathematics 2023, 11, 979 25 of 25

40. Biswas; Subhodip; Saha, D.; De, S.; Cobb, A.D.; Das, S.; Jalaian, B.A. Improving differential evolution through Bayesian
hyperparameter optimization. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Kraków, Poland,
28 June–1 July 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 832–840.
41. Saha, D.; Sallam, K.M.; De, S.; Mohamed, A.W. Framework of Ensemble Parmeter Adapted Evolutionary Algorithm for Solving
Constrained Optimization Problems. Preprints 2022. [CrossRef]
42. Mohamed, A.W.; Hadi, A.A.; Agrawal, P.; Sallam, K.M.; Mohamed, A.K. Gaining-sharing knowledge based algorithm with
adaptive parameters hybrid with imode algorithm for solving cec 2021 benchmark problems. In Proceedings of the 2021
IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC), Kraków, Poland, 28 June–1 July 2021; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2021;
pp. 841–848.
43. Houssein, E.H.; Rezk, H.; Fathy, A.; Mahdy, M.A.; Nassef, A.M. A modified adaptive guided differential evolution algorithm
applied to engineering applications. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022, 113, 104920. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.