## 4 Simulation Results and Discussion
Figure 7 shows that the PSO can track the first global maximum, with notable oscillations and high tracking time, to detect the global maximum power of 746 W. After changing the irradiances (time variant) to [850,850,850], the PSO technique sticks to the previous position and cannot track the new GMP at the new place. Table 6 presents a comparative analysis of the results obtained, evaluating the efficiency of each technique and its capability to follow the maximum power in the shortest possible time. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c} \hline
**Cases** & **Scenario \#1** \\ \hline \multirow{2}{*}{Theoretical values} & Irradiance (W/m\({}^{2}\)) & [1000,1000,1000] \\  & P\({}_{\text{MPP}}\) (W) & 749.34 \\  & V\({}_{\text{MPP}}\) (V) & 92.9 \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{PSO results} & P\({}_{\text{PV}}\) (W) & 748 \\  & V\({}_{\text{PV}}\) (V) & 92.1 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Tracking time (s) & 1.6 \\ \cline{1-1}  & PSO Efficiency & 99.59\% \\ \hline \multirow{4}{*}{CSO results} & P\({}_{\text{PV}}\) (W) & 749 \\  & V\({}_{\text{PV}}\) (V) & 92.5 \\ \cline{1-1}  & Tracking time (s) & 0.6 \\ \cline{1-1}  & PSO Efficiency & 99.73\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: Scenario 1: Comparisons of the PSO and the CSO under static uniform conditions. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Cases** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Scenario \#3**} \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{Theoretical values} & Time & (0–2.0 s) & (2.0–4 s) \\  & Irradiance (W/m\({}^{2}\)) & [1000,1000,1000] & [850,850,850] \\  & P\({}_{\rm MPP}\) (W) & 749.3 & 638.4 \\  & V\({}_{\rm MPP}\) (V) & 92.9 & 92.8 \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{PSO results} & P\({}_{\rm PV}\) (W) & 746 & 525 \\  & V\({}_{\rm PV}\) (V) & 92.5 & 76.4 \\  & PSO Efficiency & 98.8\% & 91.6\% \\ \hline \multirow{3}{*}{CSO results} & P\({}_{\rm PV}\) (W) & 749 & 593 \\  & V\({}_{\rm PV}\) (V) & 92.5 & 82.4 \\ \cline{1-1}  & PSO Efficiency & 99.55\% & 93.3\% \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Scenario 3: Comparisons of the PSO and the CSO under dynamic uniform conditions. Figure 6: Scenario 2: Output power–voltage under static PSCs [1000,900,800]: (**a**) CSO and (**b**) PSO. Scenario 4: Dynamic Partial Shading Conditions  
Figure 8 indicates the generated power obtained using the CSO and PSO algorithms under dynamic PSCs. In this scenario, the solar PV modules experience time-dependent variations in irradiance, initially set at [1000,900,800] for the time interval of 0 to 2 s. This variation leads to multiple local power peaks and a single GPP, with corresponding power and output voltage values of 637.9 W and 95.5 V. Subsequently, the irradiance levels shift to [1000,400,900] for the next interval, from 2 to 4 s. This change signifies a transition to a different PSC, causing the formation of a new GPP with generated power and output voltage of 460.1 W and 62 V, respectively, due to the fluctuating irradiance distribution over time. Figure 8 shows that the CSO can track the first GPP with fewer oscillations around the steady state, and it requires a shorter tracking time to detect the global peak power, 637.5 W. After changing the irradiances to PSC2 [1000,400,900], the CSO technique sticks and cannot track the new GMP of the new PSC2. Figure 8 shows that the PSO can track the first global peak power at irradiances (PSC1) of [1000,900,800] with notable oscillations, and it requires  
Figure 7: Scenario 3: Output power–voltage under dynamic uniform circumstances, [1000,1000,1000] to [850,850,850]: (a) CSO and (b) PSO. more tracking time to detect the peak power, 637.7 W. After changing the irradiances to PSC2 [1000,400,900], the PSO technique sticks and cannot track the new GMPP of the new PSC2. Table 7 shows the results obtained in terms of the efficiency of each technique and the effectiveness of each technique in extracting maximum power within the shortest time and a comparative analysis between them.