## 4 Simulation Setup and Results
### Comparison between the Proposed Method and Baseline Algorithm
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Gain**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Methodology**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Input-Current**} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(D\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(k\)} & \multirow{2}{*}{\(D_{\text{Z}}\)} \\  & & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.1265** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.2548 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \multirow{3}{*}{3.5} & Proposed & **0.1721** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.3562 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.2271** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.4504 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{3.7} & Proposed & **0.2662** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.5339 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{3.8} & Proposed & **0.3204** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.6255 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.3533** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{3.9} & Baseline & 0.7045 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.3944** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.7873 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.1} & Proposed & **0.4234** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.8646 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.4657** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 0.9416 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.3} & Proposed & **0.4758** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.0116 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.5354** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.4} & Baseline & 1.0635 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.5407** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.1519 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.6} & Proposed & **0.5418** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.1947 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.7} & Proposed & **0.5613** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.2526 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.8} & Proposed & **0.5797** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.3181 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{4.9} & Proposed & **0.6217** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.364 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.6652** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5} & Baseline & 1.4482 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.4482 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.1} & Proposed & **0.7102** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.4702 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.2} & Proposed & **0.7848** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.5316 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.3} & Proposed & **0.7166** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.5812 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.4} & Proposed & **0.6714** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.6132 & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.5} & Proposed & **0.7472** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.6585 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.7614** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.6} & Baseline & 1.7035 & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Proposed & **0.7751** & & & & \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{5.7} & Proposed & **0.7716** & & & & \\ \cline{3-5} \cline{5-6}  & Baseline & 1.7547 & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: _Cont._Furthermore, we compared the baseline and proposed methods as shown in Figure 3 to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. Figure 3 shows the input-current ripple values of the compared algorithms. It indicates that the proposed technique can attain smaller input-current ripple values over its operating area. Moreover, in most cases, the models differ significantly, except in one case, which demonstrates an almost similar performance (gain = 3). Figure 3 illustrates the percentage improvement of the proposed method compared with the baseline algorithm. It is evident from Figure 3 that the proposed method achieved