EAI Endorsed Transactions

on Scalable Information Systems Research Article

HHO-LPWSN: Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm

for Sensor Nodes Localization Problem in Wireless
Sensor Networks
Ravi Sharma1, * and Shiva Prakash2

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology – Gorakhpur, India
1

Department of Information Technology and Computer Application, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology –
2

Gorakhpur, India.

Abstract
Wireless sensor network (WSN) is a prominent technology for remote area monitoring with the assimilation of the Internet
of Things (IoT). Over the past decades, sensor node localization has become an essential challenge of WSNs. The sensor
indicates localization challenges related to NP-hard problems. Nature-inspired computational intelligence algorithms are
used to solve NP-hard problems efficiently for sensor node localization. After the rigorous advanced search in reputable
research journals, efficient newly designed Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) algorithm has not been used to sensor
nodes localization until now. Therefore, this paper does and compares the proposed work from the recently available well-
known optimization algorithms such as the Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA), Equilibrium Optimizer (EO), and Grey Wolf
Optimizer (GWO). The simulation results of the proposed work showed that it can outperform in terms of average
localization error, the number of localized sensor nodes, and computational cost compared to other computational
intelligence algorithms.

Keywords: Wireless Sensor Networks, Sensor Nodes, Localization Error, Computational Intelligence, Anchor Nodes, Location
Optimization.

Received on 20 May 2020, accepted on 12 February 2021, published on 25 February 2021

Copyright © 2021 Ravi Sharma et al., licensed to EAI. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/), which permits unlimited use, distribution and
reproduction in any medium so long as the original work is properly cited.

doi: 10.4108/eai.25-2-2021.168807

Corresponding author. [email protected]

*

localization of sensor nodes becomes an important challenge

for WSNs [8-10].
1. Introduction The localization algorithm is classified into two parts,
such as range-based and range-free-based localization
Today is the era of technological automation [1], where approaches. Range-based localization approaches [11] are
systems are designed with the help of global networks designs based on distance or angle calculation between
(Internet) in such a way that human intervention would be nodes and while range-free-based localization approaches
minimized. Researchers worked with the IoT system to meet [12] use hop count between sensor nodes to estimate the
all the requirements of technical automation [2-5]. These coordination of sensor nodes. The range-based localization
types of systems consume a lot of data [6] to solve real-time approach is the Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI)
challenges. A large amount of realistic data can be collected [13], Time of Arrival (ToA) [14], Angle of Arrival (AoA)
using only WSNs. Researchers are more concerned about [15] and Time Difference of Arrival (TDoA) [16]. Range-
the design of WSN-IoT system integration [7]. Real-time free-based localization approaches are Distance Vector-Hop
data are collected by sensor nodes under the umbrella of a (DV-Hop) [17], Ad-Hoc Positioning System (APS) [18],
WSN. The collected data of the sensor nodes have no and Multi-Dimensional Scaling (MDS) [19]. In range-based
meaning until the WSN knows its actual state. Thus, the localization approaches, anchor nodes information is
required to estimate the coordination of sensor nodes.

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

1 Scalable Information Systems
Online First
Ravi Sharma and Shiva Prakash

Anchor nodes are nodes whose coordinate information is Salp Swarm Algorithm (SSA)
known in the system. For sensor node localization the needs Mirjalili et al. [24] proposed the SSA algorithm, which
at least three anchor nodes. [20]. The cost of anchor nodes in mimics the social interaction behavior of salp swarms.SSA
the system is higher than the deployment of sensor nodes is a population-based Swarm Intelligence (SI) algorithm.
due to the additional cost of the Global Positioning System The slap has a transparent barrel-like body, and its tissues
(GPS) equipped with anchor nodes [21]. The hardware cost are like a jellyfish structure. They live underneath the sea
of localization can be solved efficiently using computational and search for their food by the salp chains. The salps chain
intelligence algorithms for sensor nodes. Computational is divided into two categories as leaders and followers.
intelligence algorithms are usually designed based on the Leader saps update their location according to equation 1:
working principle of nature-induced behavior of humans-
beings. Artificial intelligence incorporated into localization 𝐹𝐹𝑗𝑗 + 𝑐𝑐1 ��𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 + 𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑗 �𝑐𝑐2 + 𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑗 � 𝑐𝑐3 ≥ 0
modules using computational intelligence algorithms [22]. 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗1 = � (1)
Thus, there is a need to estimate the location of sensor nodes 𝐹𝐹𝑗𝑗 − 𝑐𝑐1 ��𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 + 𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑗 �𝑐𝑐2 + 𝑙𝑙𝑏𝑏𝑗𝑗 � 𝑐𝑐3 < 0
optimally using computational intelligence algorithms.
Numerous computational intelligence algorithms are Where 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗1 is represented as the leader's location in the jth
available to find the optimal solution for sensor node
dimension, 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑗𝑗 and 𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑗𝑗 represented as the upper bound and
localization problems but still, there is a need to achieve the
fast convergence speed optimization algorithm for sensor lower bound of the jth dimension of the target region, 𝐹𝐹𝑗𝑗
node localization by optimally balancing the total number denotes target localization of food, and 𝑐𝑐1 , 𝑐𝑐2 , 𝑐𝑐3 are random
sensor node localization and mean error rate. The newly variables.
designed computational intelligence algorithm [23] in which
the author claimed that the HHO algorithm outperforms in The follower slaps his place according to equation 2.
terms of statistical results compared to other well-known
1
optimizers. Thus, the rigorous advanced search in reputable 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗𝑖𝑖 = 𝑎𝑎𝑡𝑡 2 + 𝑣𝑣0 𝑡𝑡 (2)
2
research journals found that this efficient newly designed Where 𝑖𝑖 ≥ 2, 𝑥𝑥𝑗𝑗𝑖𝑖
is the position of the follower slap in the jth
HHO algorithm has not been used for sensor node
dimension, 𝑣𝑣0 and 𝑣𝑣𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓 are the initial and final velocities,
localization until now. Therefore the main contributions of 𝑣𝑣𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
this paper are: 𝑡𝑡represented as time and 𝑎𝑎 =
𝑣𝑣0
1. A newly designed HHO computational intelligence
algorithm by Heidari et al. [23] is used to solve the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO)
localization problem of sensor nodes in WSN. Mirjalili et al. [25] proposed the GWO algorithm from
2. The proposed work implementation using the MatLab leadership qualities inspired by Grey Wolves. It is a swarm
tool is presented. computational intelligence algorithm similar to PSO, Ant
3. The design work of this paper is compared with other Colony Optimization (ABC) algorithm. This mimics the
computational intelligence algorithms such as SSA, lead pecking order and the relationship of wolves. The
GWO, and EO. social pecking order is simulated by classifying the
population of search agents based on their fitness:
4. Performance analysis parameters for the suggested
• Level 1 (Alpha):
work in terms of mean localization error, computational
This is the leader who is male or female. Alpha is
cost, and the number of localized sensor nodes.
mostly responsible for decision-making (such as
hunting, sleeping places, etc.).Others accept alpha by
This paper is structured as follows: section two presents putting their tails down.
computational intelligence algorithms, section three presents • Level 2 (Beta):
the literature survey of esteemed existing works in the field Betas are subordinate wolves that help alpha in making
of anchors-based sensor nodes localization, section four decisions. Beta is an advisor to the Alpha of this pack.
provides the proposed approaches model, flowchart and They consider the best candidate to be an alpha when
algorithm, section five provides the proposed work the alpha dies or becomes too old. Beta ensures Alpha's
evaluation between them in terms of mean localization error,
orders are followed, and it also provides them with
computation cost, the number of localized nodes and section
feedback.
six presents the conclusion of designed paper works.
• Level 3 (Delta):
Deltas are also subordinate wolves. Delta wolves
2. Computational Intelligence Algorithms dominate Omega and report to Alpha and Beta. The
delta can be classified as scouts, sentinels, elders,
Computational intelligence algorithms are nature-inspired hunters, caretakers.
algorithms; nowadays, popularly used in interdisciplinary to • Level 4 (Omega):
achieve optimal results. In this section, various well-known
It is like a sacrificial goat in a pack.
computational intelligence algorithms like SSA, GWO, EO,
and HHO are presented in detail below:

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

2 Scalable Information Systems
Online First
 HHO-LPWSN: Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm for Sensor Nodes Localization Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks

GWO Search Process: The model demonstrated mimic • Exploration Phase:

hunting behavior of grey wolves to use three stages, In exploration, the harris hawks use their powerful eyes
searching, circling, and attacking prey. The first two stages to locate prey. Harris Hawks is randomly perched in
are given to the exploration process, and the last one several locations, and they explore the possibility of
presents the exploitation process. hunting on two occasions based on q value. If q> 0.5,
• Searching (Exploration): Grey wolves typically detect they are close enough to attack prey, and they sit on the
the search process according to alpha, beta, and delta
random tallest tree, which is modeled in the equation.
positions. They distributed themselves from one another
𝑋𝑋(𝑡𝑡 + 1) =
to exploit to locate prey and attack prey. The GWO
𝑋𝑋𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑡𝑡) − 𝑟𝑟1 |𝑋𝑋𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑡𝑡) − 2𝑟𝑟2 𝑋𝑋(𝑡𝑡)| 𝑞𝑞 ≥ 0.5
algorithm uses the A constraint, in which A is a random �
�𝑋𝑋𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑡𝑡) − 𝑋𝑋𝑚𝑚 (𝑡𝑡)� − 𝑟𝑟3 �𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 + 𝑟𝑟4 (𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 − 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿)� 𝑞𝑞 < 0.5
value, and its value is greater than 1 or less than -1. The
search agents may diverge from the prey when |A| > 1, (6)
and they force to diverge for finding a better one.
• Encircling (Exploration): Grey wolves encircling the Where X (t + 1) is represented as the next t iteration of
prey before hunting. The encircling behavior calculated the hawk's vector position,𝑋𝑋𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑡𝑡)shows the current
by using mathematical equations (3) and (4) are as position of the rabbit, 𝑋𝑋(𝑡𝑡)is shown as the current
follows: position of the hawkers, 𝑟𝑟1 , 𝑟𝑟2 , 𝑟𝑟3 , 𝑟𝑟4 and 𝑞𝑞have random
�⃗ = |𝐶𝐶⃗. 𝑋𝑋
𝐷𝐷 ����⃗𝑝𝑝 (𝑡𝑡) − 𝑋𝑋⃗(𝑡𝑡)| (3) values in the interval (0, 1), 𝐿𝐿𝐿𝐿 and 𝑈𝑈𝑈𝑈 are the upper
⃗ ����⃗
𝑋𝑋 (𝑡𝑡 + 1) = 𝑋𝑋𝑝𝑝 (𝑡𝑡) − 𝐴𝐴. 𝐷𝐷 ⃗ �⃗ (4) and lower limits of the variables., 𝑋𝑋𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟𝑟 (𝑡𝑡)is
represented as a randomly selected hawk from the
Where t represents the current iteration,𝐴𝐴⃗and 𝐶𝐶⃗ are
current population, and 𝑋𝑋𝑚𝑚 (𝑡𝑡)is denoted as the average
𝑋𝑋𝑝𝑝 is the prey position vector, 𝑋𝑋⃗
coefficient vectors, ����⃗
position of Hawke's current position.
presents the Grey Wolves position vector and 𝑋𝑋⃗(𝑡𝑡 + 1) • Exploitation phase:
is the next position vector of Grey Wolves.
In the exploitation phase, there is a chance to attack an
• Attacking Prey (Exploitation): Grey wolves end the
already identified prey.
hunt when the prey stops moving. In the GWO
algorithm, when |A| < 1, then the wolves attack the
prey. 3. Literature Survey
Equilibrium Optimizer (EO) This section provides a critical analysis of the latest research
Faramarzi et al. [26] proposed an optimization technique to works available in the field of anchor-based localization in
induce control volume mass prototyping. In EO, each WSNs using computational algorithms.
particle denotes solution and concentration as position. The The salp swarm optimization algorithm is proposed by
concentration acts as a search agent in EO and is updated Kanoosh et al. [27] for localizing sensor nodes in WSNs. In
according to the best-so-far solution. The best solution WSN, the location accuracy of sensor node localization is
obtained is known as the final equilibrium state. The EO greatly affected by the salp swarm algorithm compared to
algorithm is modeled in equation 5 by updating the rules. particle swarm optimization, butterfly optimization
algorithm, firefly algorithm, grey wolf optimizer. The
𝐶𝐶⃗ = 𝐶𝐶⃗𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 + �𝐶𝐶⃗ − 𝐶𝐶⃗𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 �. 𝐹𝐹⃗ +
𝐺𝐺⃗
(1 − 𝐹𝐹⃗ ) (5) simulation result shows that the performance of the
�⃗𝑉𝑉
λ proposed algorithm is much better than other localization
algorithms in terms of the number of localized nodes,
𝐶𝐶⃗is represented as a concentration vector, 𝐶𝐶⃗𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 is presented as localization error, and computing cost.
an equilibrium candidates vector, 𝐹𝐹⃗ is represented as the Rajkumar et al. [28] proposed work by incorporating the
exponential term vector for the concentration update rule, Grey Wolf Optimization (GWO) algorithm to detect the
�⃗λdenotes a random vector between [0, 1], 𝐺𝐺⃗ is represented as accurate geographic location of unknown sensor nodes with
a generation rate vector, 𝑉𝑉is represented as the control the help of anchor nodes in WSNs. The GWO algorithm
volume of𝐶𝐶. mimics the social behavior of a grey wolf leadership to
attack targets. The suggested work is implemented using the
Harris Hawks Optimization (HHO) MatLab tool for randomly deployed sensor nodes in the
Heidari et al. [23] proposed a nature-inspired computational target region. Parameters such as computation cost,
intelligence algorithm adopting the harris hawk's behavioral localized node percentage, the minimum number of error
style of prey pursuit. The several hawks cooperatively measures for analysis of GWO's ability, and other types of
pounce to surprise the prey. Harris Hawks has a unique metaheuristic algorithms. The result of faster convergence
cooperative pursuit strategy based on conditions of dynamic and the success rate of the GWO algorithm is better than
nature and escape strategies of prey. The hawks show other PSO and other metaheuristics algorithms like the
innovative team spirit to chase strength in terms of hunting, Modified BAT Algorithm (MBA).
encircling, and getting out of the hunt. The exploration and
exploitation steps of the HHO algorithm are as follows:

3 EAI Endorsed Transactions on

Scalable Information Systems
Online First
Ravi Sharma and Shiva Prakash

Table 1. Taxonomy of anchor-based sensor nodes localization approaches for sensor nodes using computational
intelligence algorithms in WSN.

Authors Year Design Techniques Compared approaches Target parameters Simulation

of approach used Tool
Publ-
ication
Kanoosh 2019 Salp Swarm PSO, Salp Swarm Algorithm Mean localization MatLab
et al. [27] Algorithm for BOA, error,
Node FA, Number of
Localization in GWO localized nodes
WSNs
Rajakumar 2017 GWO algorithm GWO PSO, Computation cost, MatLab
et al. [28] for node MBA minimum
localization localization error,
problem in localized nodes
WSNs
Tuba et al. 2018 FA-based Semi-mobile 3D Localization, PSO Improve MatLab
[29] sensor nodes nodes, Algorithm, (TLP), localization
localization in Firefly BA accuracy
two-stage optimization
algorithm
Strumberg 2018 Sensor nodes Monarch PSO, 2.5% of anchor MatLab
er et al. localization butterfly MPSO, nodes with (20 m
[30] using MBO optimization ABC, 50 m),
algorithm in MSABC, 10% of anchor
WSN MBO nodes with 50m
Alomari et 2018 To obstacle GWO, Snake-like, Localization ratio, MatLab
al. [31] avoidance for WOA Z-curves Localization error,
mobile anchor Computation cost
nodes using SI
optimization
algorithms
Strumberg 2018 WSN EHO PSO, Mean squared Experim-
er et al. localization algorithm Multi step PSO, error ental setup
[32] using EHO ABC,
algorithm Multi step ABC
Strumberg 2019 A node EHO Iterative best Localized number --
er et al. localization in algorithm, performance algorithm, nodes,
[33] WSNs using tree growth taboo search, localization error,
EHO and tree algorithm largest absolute execution time
growth difference algorithm
algorithm
Tan et al. 2019 A sensor node DMA, DV hop, Localization error, Network
[34] localization optimized MDS map Total consumption Simulator
using distance linear of energy
mapping transforming
algorithm function, GA

Tuba et al. [29] proposed two-stage sensor node this work for an optimal approach for the localization of
localization using a firefly algorithm. In the WSN, the RSSI sensors with firefly algorithm modification and adjustment.
(Received Signal Strength Signal) propagation model is Monarch Butterfly Optimization (MBO) algorithm used
used to estimate the distance between the anchor nodes and by Strumberger et al. [30] to solve the NP-hard problem of
the semi anchor nodes. The proposed algorithm for the WSN localization. The novel Monarch Butterfly SI
localization of the sensor node follows a two-part: first, four approach uses multi-phase localization for sensor nodes.
anchor nodes are placed at the corners of the target area MBO is implemented and tested on several problem
coverage, and secondly the estimation of the optimal examples that are found in the literature.
distance using distance calculation. The future direction of

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

4 Scalable Information Systems
Online First
 HHO-LPWSN: Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm for Sensor Nodes Localization Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks

Traditional Harris hawks

mathematical optimization
(x1, y1) (x3, y3)
optimization algorithm
(x1, y1) (x3, y3) algorithms
Position Obtaining
Position Obtaining (x4, y4) calculating sensor position
(x4, y4) calculating sensor position
Sensor Node
Measurements
Measurements Anchor Node
based on TOA/
Sensor Node based on TOA/ (x2, y2)
(x2, y2) TDOA/RSSI,
Anchor Node TDOA/RSSI,

Figure 1. Anchor-based sensor nodes localization Figure 2. Anchor-based sensor nodes localization
approach using traditional mathematical optimization approach using harris hawks optimization algorithm
algorithm WSNs WSNs

Experimental result analysis of the proposed work from estimation matrix, distance matrix, and optimized linear
other approaches has been successfully presented and has transformation function.GA is employed for the optimal
shown considerable potential in terms of solving the NP- detection coordinate value of nodes during the calculation of
hard problem of WSN localization. the proposed algorithm. The node localization approach was
A location-aware Mobile Anchor (MA) uses path simulated using three anchor nodes by the researcher in the
planning to optimize mobile nodes. The work of MA to laboratory. The results of the proposed algorithm perform
traverse into the target region of interest to minimize well in terms of localization accuracy and energy
localization error and maximize localization of the consumption other than the localization algorithm.
successful node. Alomari et al. [31] proposed two novel Current important works of literature in the field of
dynamic movement approaches that provide the obstacle anchor-based localization WSNs are based on various
avoidance path planning for mobile node localization in parameters such as authors' publication, design approach,
WSN. Movement planning of mobile nodes designed based the technique used, comparison approaches, target
on two SI-based algorithms, i.e., GWO and Whale parameters, and simulation tools using computational
Optimization Algorithm (WOA). Comparing this proposed intelligence algorithms, as shown in Table 1.
approach to the snake-like and z-curve models, it has shown
remarkable results in terms of localization ratio, localization
accuracy, and computation time. 4. Proposed Model Formulation
An Elephant Herring Optimization (EHO) algorithm is
adopted by Strumberger et al. [32] to solve localization The proposed work presented for sensor nodes location
problems in WSN. New metaheuristic computational estimation challenges using an anchor-based localization
intelligence approach dealing with NP-hard problems to approach with the computational intelligence algorithms.
achieve a near-to-target coordination value. The purpose of The localization proposed model formulation is further
this approach is for the localization of randomly deployed classified into a subsection of the proposed model, proposed
sensor nodes in the monitoring area. The implementation of flow chart, and proposed algorithm.
EHO for node localization in a WSN and results in efficient
metaheuristic approaches to deal with sensor nodes Proposed Model
localization. The work presents a future direction of the The proposed model designed with the components of
EHO algorithm that can apply efficient solutions to the anchors node ((x1, y1), (x2, y2), (x3, y3)), sensor node (x4,
superset problem of node localization, i.e., the coverage y4), HHO is used as a computational intelligence algorithm
problem in WSNs. and measuring techniques (RSSI) as the inputs for the
An improved version of metaheuristic algorithms, such as positioning estimation of unknown sensor nodes. The
the tree development algorithm and the EHO algorithm, is traditional optimization-based localization model using
proposed by Strumberger et al. [33] to solve the localization GWO, SSA, and EO is depicted in Figure 1. The newly
problem of WSNs. The improvement of the proposed smart localization model for anchor-based localization using
algorithm is analyzed by varying the size of the sensor the HHO algorithm, as shown in Figure 2.
network from 25 to 150 target nodes. The state of the art of
some SI algorithms is tested in comparison to the proposed Proposed Flow Chart
algorithm. Simulation results indicate that the proposed The working principles of the proposed work are depicted in
algorithm achieves very efficient results in terms of accurate the form of the flow chart in Figure 3, which shows the flow
location estimation of the coordinate of the unknown sensor control of a designed framework for sensor nodes
node. localization in an anchors-based approach using HHO
A Distance Mapping Algorithm (DMA) is proposed by computational intelligence algorithms. The computational
Tan et al. [34] to overcome the node localization problem in intelligence algorithms are used SSA, GWO, EO, and HHO
WSN. To detect node position with high accuracy using the algorithms to finding optimal localization.

5 EAI Endorsed Transactions on

Scalable Information Systems
Online First
Ravi Sharma and Shiva Prakash

Start
between sensor nodes and anchor nodes, the position is to
N sensor nodes, M anchor node is deployed in save the best location of optimization algorithm in each
centroid of two-dimensional sensor region iteration, Maxiter represents the maximum of iteration to
position refinement, SearchAgent is agents are required to
sensor node index i = 1 finding an optimal position, lb is a lower bound and ub is
an upper bound of the given target area.

If number (ranging Begin:

No anchor /reference 1. Targetarea= l * b
nodes) >=3 2. AN (x, y) = centroid (a, b, c, d)
Yes 3. SN (x, y)= Tagetarea * rand (SNtotal,dim)
Calculate the distance with help of sensor 4. for i =1 to SNtotal
node based on RSSI measurement 5. do
6. SNref =RSSIrecvied(AN)
Establish the objective function f (x, y) 7. If (size (SNref)<= three))
8. then
Call HHO algorithm to get optimal location 9. Distance between anchor nodes and
sensor node is calculated using the below
Set the localized senor node as reference node equation:
10. disti =�((𝑥𝑥𝑡𝑡 − 𝑥𝑥 )2 + (𝑦𝑦𝑡𝑡 − 𝑦𝑦)2 )
i=i+1
11. Estimate the coordinate value of SN (x,
y,z) using below equations:
No
If i> N 12. let’s z=0 for two-dimensional area
13. (x–x1)2+ (y–y1)2 + (z–z1)2= dist12
Yes 14. (x–x2)2+ (y–y2)2 + (z–z2)2= dist22
Estimation the mean localization error, computational 15. (x–x3)2+ (y–y3)2 + (z–z3)2= dist32
cost, total number localized sensor nodes 16. Call Harris Hawks Optimization
computational intelligence algorithm:
Stop 17. Initialize the random population
18. Positions=initialization
(SearchAgents_no, dim, ub, lb)
Figure 3. Flowchart of the WSN sensor nodes 19. while (1 < MaxIter)
localization approach using the HHO computational 20. do
intelligence algorithm. 21. Update the position of search agents in
the exploration phase using escaping
energy of prey |E|.
Proposed Algorithm 22. End while
The proposed work is designed for anchor-based
23. End if
localization using HHO computational intelligence
algorithms. The algorithm for anchor-based localization 24. End For
of sensor nodes using the HHO algorithm is presented END
below:
Inputs: Outputs:
Targetarea is a given target area where sensor nodes are to Number of localized sensor nodes, mean localization
deploy randomly, l is a length and b is a breath of the error, and computational cost
target area, AN (x, y) in anchor nodes coordinate, centroid
(a, b, c, d) is a function to calculate the centroid of the
given area and a, b, c, d are the sides of the given target 5. Simulation Results and Analysis
area, SN (x, y) is a current location of sensor nodes, SNtotal
is a total number of sensor nodes, dim is represent the Performance analysis of the proposed HHO algorithm
dimensional of the target area, i is denoted the index of along with comparative analysis of SSA, GWO, and EO
sensor nodes, SNref calculates the total number of anchor algorithms in an anchor-based localization approach. The
nodes are in their range, disti is estimating the distance performance is analyzed with the help MatLab tool

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

6 Scalable Information Systems
Online First
 HHO-LPWSN: Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm for Sensor Nodes Localization Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks

Figure 4. HHO algorithm for randomly deployed Figure 6. GWO algorithm for randomly deployed
sensor nodes located in the target area. sensor nodes located in the target area.

Figure 5. SSA algorithm for randomly deployed Figure 7. EO algorithm for randomly deployed
sensor nodes located in the target area sensor nodes located in the target area.

on the PC with an intel core i7 processor, 3.40 GHz CPU, the maximum iteration is set 10 times for estimated
and 4 GB RAM. This section is divided into two parts position refinement.
such as the simulation scenario and performance
evaluation criteria. Performance Evaluation Criteria
The performance evaluation criteria for the anchors-based
Simulation Scenario localization approach using the HHO algorithm are mean
In the simulation configuration, the transmission range of localization error, computation cost, and the number of
anchor and sensor nodes is fixed at 20 m. The random sensors localized with the variation of the number of
deployment of sensor nodes in the target area of 50 x 50 randomly deployed sensor nodes. The number of
m2. Each simulation setup of up to 100 has randomly randomly deployed anchor nodes by varying from 10 to
deployed anchor nodes in the target region with a 100, with a difference of 10 in each simulation. The
variation of 10, and a free space path loss & fading model anchor-based localization approach using HHO, SSA,
are considered. The RSSI measurement technique is used GWO, and EO algorithms shown in Figure 4, Figure 5,
to distance estimation between sensor nodes and the Figure 6, and Figure 7 for randomly deployed of 200
anchor node in a range-based localization approach. The sensor nodes.
optimization algorithms are taken by SSA, GWO, EO,
and HHO to the simulation of a single localization
approach. In optimization algorithms, the search agents
are ten and

7 EAI Endorsed Transactions on

Scalable Information Systems
Online First
Ravi Sharma and Shiva Prakash

Table 2. Minimum and maximum mean localization

error of computation intelligence algorithms

Computational Minimum Maximum

intelligence value (m) value (m)
algorithm
HHO 0.8703 1.9835
SSA 1.5882 2.5719
GWO 1.1399 1.9756
EO 3.8334 18.2536

Table 3. Minimum and maximum computational cost

of computational intelligence algorithms

Computational Minimum Maximum Figure 8. The mean localization error required for
intelligence value (sec) value sensor nodes localized in the target area
algorithm (sec)
HHO 120.0025 184.5612
SSA 123.5735 223.5646
GWO 136.2160 226.8486
EO 117.7639 3408.506

Table 4. Minimum and maximum number of

localized nodes of computation intelligence
algorithms

Computational Minimum Maximum

intelligence value value
algorithm
HHO 100 173
SSA 100 167
GWO 100 155
EO 32 107 Figure 9. The total computational cost required for
sensor nodes localized in the target area.
• Mean Localization Error:
The average difference between actual sensor nodes
and estimated sensor nodes coordinate values. The
mean localization error for sensor node localization
for each randomly deployed anchor node from the
variation 10 to 100 with a difference of 10 is shown
in Table 2 and Figure 8. The resultant graph shows
that the HHO algorithm is much better than the SSA,
GWO, and EO algorithms for the anchors-based
localization approach.
• Computational Cost:
The total time is required to complete the localization
process for randomly deployed sensor nodes is
known as computation cost, and it is generally
measured in terms of seconds (sec) unit. The
computational cost of anchor-based localization using
the HHO algorithm approximates better compared to
SSA, GWO, and EO algorithms. By variation of 10 to
200 anchor nodes deployment with a difference of Figure 10. The total number of sensor nodes
10, the computation cost is calculated as shown in localized in the target area.
Table 3 and Figure 9.

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

8 Scalable Information Systems
Online First
 HHO-LPWSN: Harris Hawks Optimization Algorithm for Sensor Nodes Localization Problem in Wireless Sensor Networks

• Number of Localized Nodes: IEEE 7th International Advance Computing Conference

The number of localized sensor nodes over the (IACC) (pp. 174-178). IEEE.
number of randomly deployed anchor nodes by the [3] Bhatt, J. G., Jani, O. K., & Bhatt, C. B. (2020). Automation
Based Smart Environment Resource Management in Smart
variation of 10 to 100 sensor nodes with a difference
Building of Smart City. In Smart Environment for Smart
of 10. The number of localized sensor nodes in an Cities (pp. 93-107). Springer, Singapore.
anchor-based localization approach using the HHO [4] He, J., Rong, J., Sun, L., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., & Ma, J.
algorithm performs better than SSA, GWO, and the (2020). A framework for cardiac arrhythmia detection
EO algorithm is shown in Table 4 and Figure 10. from IoT-based ECGs. World Wide Web, 1-16.
[5] Jiang, H., Zhou, R., Zhang, L., Wang, H., & Zhang, Y.
(2019). Sentence level topic models for associated topics
6. Conclusion extraction. World Wide Web, 22(6), 2545-2560.
[6] Qin, Y., Sheng, Q. Z., Falkner, N. J., Dustdar, S., Wang,
The sensor node's localization became a crucial challenge H., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2016). When things matter: A
for WSN. The technology advancement leads to WSN- survey on data-centric internet of things. Journal of
Network and Computer Applications, 64, 137-153.
IoT integration in order to reduce human intervention.
[7] Bajaj, K., Sharma, B., & Singh, R. (2020). Integration of
Reduce the extra cost of GPS components is also WSN with IoT Applications: A Vision, Architecture, and
minimized using an anchor-based localization approach. Future Challenges. In Integration of WSN and IoT for
The optimal coordinate value calculation of the sensor Smart Cities (pp. 79-102). Springer, Cham.
nodes is done using the newly designed HHO algorithm in [8] Kaur, A., Gupta, G. P., & Mittal, S. (2020). Impact of
this paper. The simulated results and analysis of the HHO Nature-Inspired Algorithms on Localization Algorithms in
algorithm are compared with the SSA, GWO, and EO Wireless Sensor Networks. In Nature-Inspired Computing
algorithms in an anchors-based localization approach. The Applications in Advanced Communication Networks (pp.
percentage improvement of the HHO algorithm for 1-18). IGI Global.
[9] Sharma, R., & Prakash, S. (2018, October). Emerging
localization problems over the SSA, GWO, and EO in
Trends in Localization Techniques for WSNs: A Review.
terms of mean localization error, computational cost, and In 2018 International Conference on Advances in
the number of localization nodes is presented in Table 5. Computing, Communication Control and Networking
(ICACCCN) (pp. 1119-1124). IEEE.
[10] Sharma, R., & Prakash, S. (2019, March). Latest Trends
Table 5. Percentage improvement of the HHO and Future Directions of Localization Algorithms in
algorithm over other algorithms. Wireless Sensor Networks. In 2019 6th International
Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global
Development (INDIACom) (pp. 626-631). IEEE.
[11] Stoleru, R., He, T., & Stankovic, J. A. (2007). Range-free
SSA GWO EO
localization. In Secure Localization and Time
Mean localization error 45.46 8.4 % 672.03 % Synchronization for Wireless Sensor and Ad Hoc
% Networks (pp. 3-31). Springer, Boston, MA.
Computational Cost 13.97 19.2 1057.75 [12] Stoleru, R., He, T., & Stankovic, J. A. (2007). Range-free
% % % localization. In Secure Localization and Time
Number of localization 2.2 % 6.6 % 49.08 % Synchronization for Wireless Sensor and Ad Hoc
nodes Networks (pp. 3-31). Springer, Boston, MA.
[13] Adewumi, O. G., Djouani, K., & Kurien, A. M. (2013,
February). RSSI based indoor and outdoor distance
From two newly designed algorithms i.e., EO and HHO estimation for localization in WSN. In 2013 IEEE
algorithm in which EO algorithm failed to solve international conference on Industrial technology (ICIT)
localization problem. Table 5 shows the HHO algorithm's (pp. 1534-1539). IEEE.
overall performance analysis parameters for the [14] Ravindra, S., & Jagadeesha, S. N. (2014). Time of arrival
efficiently estimated location of sensor nodes in WSN based localization in wireless sensor networks: A linear
compared to other computational algorithms. The future approach. arXiva preprint arXiv:1403.6697.
direction of this proposed work can be implemented for [15] Rong, P., & Sichitiu, M. L. (2006, September). Angle of
the three-dimensional target area. arrival localization for wireless sensor networks. In 2006
3rd annual IEEE communications society on sensor and ad
hoc communications and networks (Vol. 1, pp. 374-382).
IEEE.
References [16] Xiong, H., Chen, Z., Yang, B., & Ni, R. (2015). TDOA
localization algorithm with compensation of clock offset
[1] Balaji, S., Nathani, K., & Santhakumar, R. (2019). IoT for wireless sensor networks. China Communications,
technology, applications, and challenges: a contemporary 12(10), 193-201.
survey. Wireless personal communications, 108(1), 363- [17] Xiao, H., Zhang, H., Wang, Z., & Gulliver, T. A. (2017,
388. August). An RSSI based DV-hop algorithm for wireless
[2] Vikram, N., Harish, K. S., Nihaal, M. S., Umesh, R., sensor networks. In 2017 IEEE Pacific Rim Conference on
Shetty, A., & Kumar, A. (2017, January). A low cost home Communications, Computers and Signal Processing
automation system using Wi-Fi based wireless sensor (PACRIM) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
network incorporating Internet of Things (IoT). In 2017

9 EAI Endorsed Transactions on

Scalable Information Systems
Online First
Ravi Sharma and Shiva Prakash

[18] Blumenthal, J., Reichenbach, F., & Timmermann, D. Localization in Wireless Sensor Networks. Sensors,
(2005, March). Position estimation in ad hoc wireless 19(11), 2515.
sensor networks with low complexity. In Joint 2nd [34] Tan, R., Li, Y., Shao, Y., & Si, W. (2019). Distance
workshop on positioning, navigation and communication Mapping Algorithm for Sensor Node Localization in
(pp. 41-49). WSNs. International Journal of Wireless Information
[19] Zhou, Z. D., Hu, P., Liu, Q., & Li, F. M. (2007). MDS- Networks, 1-10.
based fast localization algorithm for wireless sensor
networks. Chinese Journal of Sensors and Actuators,
20(10), 2303-2307.
[20] Albowicz, J., Chen, A., & Zhang, L. (2001, November).
Recursive position estimation in sensor networks. In
Proceedings Ninth International Conference on Network
Protocols. ICNP 2001 (pp. 35-41). IEEE.
[21] Sharma, R., & Prakash, S. (2020). An adaptive ensemble
localization approach for sensor nodes in WSN-IoT. EAI
Endorsed Transactions on Energy Web, 7(29).
[22] Sharma, R., & Prakash, S. (2020). Eurasian Wolves-
Cuckoo Search Optimizer for Localization of Mobile
Sensor Nodes using Single Beacon Node in WSN.EAI
Endorsed Transactions on Scalable Information Systems,
7(28).
[23] Heidari, A. A., Mirjalili, S., Faris, H., Aljarah, I., Mafarja,
M., & Chen, H. (2019). Harris hawks optimization:
Algorithm and applications. Future generation computer
systems, 97, 849-872.
[24] Mirjalili, S., Gandomi, A. H., Mirjalili, S. Z., Saremi, S.,
Faris, H., & Mirjalili, S. M. (2017). Salp Swarm
Algorithm: A bio-inspired optimizer for engineering
design problems. Advances in Engineering Software, 114,
163-191.
[25] Mirjalili, S., Mirjalili, S. M., & Lewis, A. (2014). Grey
wolf optimizer. Advances in engineering software, 69, 46-
61.
[26] Faramarzi, A., Heidarinejad, M., Stephens, B., & Mirjalili,
S. (2020). Equilibrium optimizer: A novel optimization
algorithm. Knowledge-Based Systems, 191, 105190.
[27] Kanoosh, H. M., Houssein, E. H., & Selim, M. M. (2019).
Salp swarm algorithm for node localization in wireless
sensor networks. Journal of Computer Networks and
Communications, 2019.
[28] Rajakumar, R., Amudhavel, J., Dhavachelvan, P., &
Vengattaraman, T. (2017). GWO-LPWSN: Grey wolf
optimization algorithm for node localization problem in
wireless sensor networks. Journal of Computer Networks
and Communications, 2017.
[29] Tuba, E., Tuba, M., & Beko, M. (2018). Two stage
wireless sensor node localization using firefly algorithm.
In Smart trends in systems, security and sustainability (pp.
113-120). Springer, Singapore.
[30] Strumberger, I., Tuba, E., Bacanin, N., Beko, M., & Tuba,
M. (2018, April). Monarch butterfly optimization
algorithm for localization in wireless sensor networks. In
2018 28th International Conference Radioelektronika
(RADIOELEKTRONIKA) (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
[31] Alomari, A., Phillips, W., Aslam, N., & Comeau, F.
(2018). Swarm intelligence optimization techniques for
obstacle-avoidance mobility-assisted localization in
wireless sensor networks. IEEE Access, 6, 22368-22385.
[32] Strumberger, I., Beko, M., Tuba, M., Minovic, M., &
Bacanin, N. (2018, May). Elephant herding optimization
algorithm for wireless sensor network localization
problem. In Doctoral Conference on Computing, Electrical
and Industrial Systems (pp. 175-184). Springer, Cham.
[33] Strumberger, I., Minovic, M., Tuba, M., & Bacanin, N.
(2019). Performance of Elephant Herding Optimization
and Tree Growth Algorithm Adapted for Node

EAI Endorsed Transactions on

10 Scalable Information Systems
Online First