Longitudinal Modelling and Control of In-Wheel-Motor Electric Vehicles as Multi-Agent Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".