MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092784051 · doi:10.3390/en13205437

Longitudinal Modelling and Control of In-Wheel-Motor Electric Vehicles as Multi-Agent Systems

2020· article· en· W3092784051 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle Dynamics and Control Systems
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersUniversity of Tokyo
KeywordsCarSimControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringLinear-quadratic regulatorNonlinear systemPassivityMATLABEngineeringControl systemStability (learning theory)Computer scienceControl (management)Vehicle dynamicsAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper deals with longitudinal motion control of electric vehicles (EVs) driven by in-wheel-motors (IWMs). It shows that the IWM-EV is fundamentally a multi-agent system with physical interaction. Three ways to model the IWM-EV are proposed, and each is applicable to certain control objectives. Firstly, a nonlinear model with hierarchical structure is established, and it can be used for passivity-based motion control. Secondly, a linearized model with rank-1 interconnection matrix is presented for stability analysis. Thirdly, a time-varying state-space model is proposed for optimal control using linear quadratic regulator (LQR). The proposed modellings contribute the new understanding of IWM-EV dynamics from the view point of multi-agent-system theory. By choosing the suitable control theory for each model, the complexity level of system design is maintained constant, no matter what the number of IWMs installed to the vehicle body. The effectiveness of three models and their design approaches are discussed by several examples with Matlab/Carsim co-simulator.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.181 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it