Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40969101›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Comparison of Two System Identification Approaches for a Four-Wheel Differential Robot Based on Velocity Command Execution.

Diego Guffanti, Moisés Filiberto Mora Murillo, Marco Alejandro Hinojosa, Santiago Bustamante Sanchez, Javier Oswaldo Obregón Gutiérrez, Nelson Gutiérrez, Miguel Sánchez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Diego GuffantiUniversidad UTE, Av. Mariscal Sucre, Quito 170129, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-1244-291X
Moisés Filiberto Mora MurilloDepartamento de Mecánica y Ciencias Exactas, Instituto Superior Universitario Japón, Santo Domingo 230102, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-2764-1524
Marco Alejandro HinojosaCarrera de Electrónica, Instituto Superior Tecnológico Tsa'chila, Santo Domingo 230109, Ecuador.ORCID 0009-0000-1060-4746
Santiago Bustamante SanchezCarrera de Tecnología Superior en Mecánica Industrial, Instituto Superior Tecnológico Tsa'chila, Santo Domingo 230109, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-6273-4075
Javier Oswaldo Obregón GutiérrezCarrera de Electrónica, Instituto Superior Tecnológico Tsa'chila, Santo Domingo 230109, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0002-9331-6105
Nelson GutiérrezUniversidad UTE, Av. Mariscal Sucre, Quito 170129, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0003-2160-528X
Miguel SánchezUniversidad UTE, Av. Mariscal Sucre, Quito 170129, Ecuador.ORCID 0000-0001-5078-3734

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

differential robotsidentificationmotor-based modelnavigationsimplified model

Identifiers

PMID40969101
PMCPMC12158320

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.