ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A High-Precision Odometry Calibration Method for Mecanum-Wheeled Mobile Robots Based on ZUPT and Closed-Loop Pose Estimation.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- MultivariateSystem Identification of Differential Drive Robot: Comparison Between State-Space and LSTM-Based Models.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precise modeling of differential drive robots is crucial for effective control and trajectory planning in autonomous systems. A comparative analysis of two modeling approaches for a four-wheel differential drive robot is presented in this paper. The first approach, named Motor-Based Model (MBM), identifies four transfer functions, one for each motor, while the second approach, named Simplified Model (SM), uses only two transfer functions, one for linear velocity and another for angular velocity. Both models were validated by comparing their predicted trajectories against real odometry data obtained from a SLAM system implemented on a differential-drive robot. This provided a practical assessment of each model's accuracy and underscored the importance of model selection in control design and navigation tasks. The results showed that the Motor-Based Model (MBM) consistently outperformed the Simplified Model (SM) in terms of odometry accuracy, both in position and orientation. Across all trajectories, the average RMSE for position using MBM was 0.309 m, while the SM recorded a higher average RMSE of 0.414 m. Similarly, the maximum position error averaged 0.522 m for MBM and 0.710 m for SM, confirming that MBM is more accurate and consistent in position tracking. Regarding the results of orientation estimation, when averaged across all experiments, the MBM maintained a lower angular RMSE of 0.170 rad in contrast to SM, which achieves an RMSE of 0.239 rad. The maximum angular error was also higher for the MBM at 0.316 rad, compared to 0.447 rad for the SM. Moreover, the computational performance evaluation indicated that the SM consistently outperformed MBM, achieving a 30% reduction in simulation time and substantially lower memory usage. These results demonstrate the relationship between model complexity and accuracy and suggest that the motor-specific model is more appropriate for applications requiring precise mapping or localization, such as SLAM, while the simplified model may be suitable for simpler use cases with lower computational requirements, such as embedded systems with limited resources. This paper provides a practical evaluation of the accuracy and computational performance of two modeling approaches, highlighting the implications of model selection for the design of navigation tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.