Coordinated Trajectory Tracking for A Group of
Mixed Wheeled Mobile Robots
*
Sisdarmanto Adinandra and Dwi Ana Ratnawati
Department of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Industrial Technology, Universitas Islam Indonesia
(Tel : +62-274895287, ext 120; e-mail: *s.adinandra@uii.ac.id)
Abstract- Coordination between a specific mobile robot types has
been widely investigated, e.g coordination between unicycles. To
extend the applicability of the system, coordinated trajectory
tracking of mixed type of mobile robots is considered. We extend
and prove the concept that if a certain type of wheeled mobile
robot is able to individually track its own references, then
coordination in tracking with other type of robots can be achieved
simply by sharing individual tracking errors. Using two type of
wheeled mobile robots namely unicycle type (a nonholonomic
mobile robot) and omni wheels type (a holonomic mobile robot), a
coordinated control algorithm can achieve a global asymptotically
stable condition of the error dynamics of the systems. Although
communication between robots has to be done bidirectionally, the
overall group is able to maintain individual tracking while
coordinating the movements with other robots regardless the
occurring perturbations in the system. Simulation results suggest
that information sharing between the robots increase the
robustness in coordinating individual trajectories.
Keywords: coordinated trajectory tracking, unicycles, omni wheels
robots, Lyapunov function
I. INTRODUCTION
The ability of a group of wheeled mobile robots in
coordinating hard and difficult tasks has drawn attention from
scientist, hobbyist and practitioner. A group of mobile robots is
able to handle more difficult and complex tasks. The group can
achieve a certain formation as well as coordinating movement
between the members so that certain tasks can be
accomplished.
One problem in coordination between robots is the problem
of coordinating individual trajectories so that the overall
trajectories form a certain spatial patterns, see e.g. [1]-[4]. In
this particular case, a group of unicycle mobile robots is
coordinating its member’s trajectories such that the
coordination forms spatial patterns. The coordination is
achieved by exchanging individual errors within the group.
Due to the nonholomomic constraints that exist in the
systems, unicycle mobile robots is less flexible compared to
holonomic mobile robots, e.g. omni wheels mobile robots. In a
compact space, the ability of omni wheels to move sideways
becomes very important
Omni wheels mobile robots have been widely used in
football competition [5],[6]. Although it easily suffers from
slip, a good control and mechanical design can optimize the
ability of an omni wheels mobile robot. Example of trajectory
tracking or path following for omni wheel mobile robots can be
found for example in [7]- [9].
In [7], a kinematic control is built for the omnidirectional
robot. A detailed kinematic model is implemented to solve a
trajectory tracking problem. The controller takes into account
kinematic model of the wheels to reduce slip effects. In [8], a
combination of kinematic and torque control is used to track
reference trajectories, while in [9], an omnidirectional robot is
used to help patients during rehabilitation process. All
algorithms are designed for a single robot.
From the results in [1]-[4], coordination between robots
can be achieved simply via exchanging states of the robots. In
the unicycle case, the individual tracking errors are the states
that are shared between the robots. The stability proof suggests
that proper choice of control structure can simplify the
mathematical procedure, as well as extending the system with
different type of robot.
On the other hand, studies of coordinating trajectories of
omni wheels in a simple way are rare subjects. From the results
in unicycle case, it can be said that applying similar concept for
omni wheels mobile robots will be a valuable result.
Motivating by the fact, this paper addresses the problem of
coordinating a group of omni wheels mobile robots by means
of exchanging individual tracking errors. Furthermore, the
group is extended to be a mixed of unicycle and omni wheel
mobile robots. The stability of the system is investigated using
Lyapunov theorem.
The contributions of this paper are as follow: i) a simple
trajectory tracking controller for a single omni wheels mobile
robot, ii) a trajectory tracking controller for omni wheels that
able to achieve coordination with other omni wheels, as well as
with unicycle mobile robots, iii) globally asymptotically stable
error dynamics of the overall mixed wheeled mobile robot
systems, iv) simulation validation of the overall systems.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2
gives the kinematic model of unicycles and omni wheels as
well as theories for stability. Section 3 presents the control
design process, start with the design of a trajectory tracking for
a single omni wheels mobile robot, followed by the extension
to m-mixed-unicycle-omni wheels mobile robot systems.
Stability analysis is presented in this chapter. Section 4 gives
the simulation validation and performance analysis of the
mixed systems. Finally, in section 5 the conclusions of this
work are given and suggestions for further research are
presented.
II. MATHEMATICAL PRELIMINARIES
A. Kinematic model of unicycle mobile robots
This paper considers two mobile robot types: unicycle and
omni wheels. The unicycle type is represented in Figure 1.
One may argue that the kinematic models of the
robots are built using two different approaches. The unicycle is
built using forward and steering velocities as inputs that still
need to be translated into left and right wheel speeds. On the
other hand, the omni wheels model is represented directly as a
function of individual wheel.
Although the choices seem contradictive, in fact they
help in proving the concept that coordination can be achieved
simply by exchanging individual state information regardless
the model of the robots.

III. CONTROL DESIGN

In this section the control design is explained in details. For the

unicycle, both for a single and group, the trajectory tracking
controller is obtained from [1]-[2].

A. Trajectory tracking controller for a single omni wheels

mobile robot
Fig 1. Kinematic model of a unicycle mobile robot.
If reference tracking for an omni wheels is given by:
The kinematic model for the unicycle is: 𝒒!" = [𝑥!" 𝑦!" 𝜃!" ]! , its actual position is
𝒒! = [𝑥! 𝑦! 𝜃! ]! , and tracking error is given by
𝑥 cos 𝜃 0 𝑣 𝒆! = [𝑥!" − 𝑥! 𝑦!" − 𝑦! 𝜃!" − 𝜃! ]! or
𝑦 = sin 𝜃 0 , (1) 𝒆! = [𝑒!" 𝑒!" 𝑒!" ]! , then the problem of individual
𝜔
𝜃 0 1 trajectory tracking is the problem to find 𝑣! , 𝑣! , 𝑣! in (2) so that
where 𝑣 and 𝜔 are the forward and steering velocities of the 𝒆! → 0 when 𝑡 → ∞. It is to be noted that all expressions are
robots. written similarly to the expressions used in control design of
the unicyle controller presented in [1] and [2].
B. Kinematic model of omni wheels mobile robots If (2) is written into 𝒒! = 𝐴𝒗, where  𝒗 = 𝑣! 𝑣! 𝑣! 𝑻 ,
The second robot type used in this research is of omni wheels the following theorem holds for an omni wheels mobile robots
type as depicted in Figure 2. The mathematical model is given with 𝒗 equals:
as follows:
𝒗 = 𝐴!! (𝒒!" + 𝒌𝒆! ). (3)
𝑣! − cos 𝜃 − cos 𝜃 1 𝑣!
𝑣! =   sin 𝜃 − sin 𝜃 0 𝑣! Theorem 1. If there exist 𝒒!" so that an omni wheels has
𝑣∅ 𝑣! (2)
1/𝐿 1/𝐿 1/𝐿 reference trajectory trackings and 𝒗  is as given in (3) with
𝒌 =   𝑘!" 𝑘!" 𝑘!" 𝑻 > 0 is a control gain vector, then
where 𝑣! , 𝑣! and 𝑣! are the individual wheel speeds that drive 𝒗  renders the origin of 𝒆! globally asymptotically stable
the robot and are determined by the multiplication of wheel (GAS).
rotation and radii.
Proof of Theorem 1.
!
Choose a Lyapunov candidate 𝑉 = 𝒆!! 𝒆! . The derivative is
!
𝑉 = 𝒆!! 𝒆! , which is case of omni wheels becomes:

𝑉 = 𝒆!! 𝒆!
       =   𝒆!!  (𝒒!" − 𝒒! )
       = 𝒆!!  (𝒒!" − 𝐴𝒗)
       = 𝒆!!  (𝒒!" − 𝐴(𝐴!! (𝒒!" + 𝒌𝒆! )))
       = 𝒆!!  (𝒒!" − 𝐼𝒒!" − 𝐼𝒌𝒆! )
       = −𝒌𝒆!! 𝒆! ≤ 0 (4)
The result in (3) show that is 𝑉  negative definite. Since the
Figure 2. Kinematic model of an omni wheels mobile robot. Lyapunov candidate is a tracking error function of the omni
wheels, this means that the controller given in (3) renders the
origin of tracking errors dynamics of an omni
wheels  𝒆!    globally asymptotically stable (GAS).
B. Extension to m-mixed mobile robot systems
Up to this point, individual trajectory tracking controllers for
either unicycle or omni wheels are available. The extension to -
m-mixed mobile robot systems is formulized as the ability of
the group to coordinate individual trajectories so that the
coordinated movements create a certain formation type. The
member of the group can be either unicycles or omni wheels.
To achieve coordination, using the similar principal as in
[1] and [2], each robot has to share individual tracking errors.
Using the shared information, a robot that off the trajectories
can be compensated by the movements of other robots. As
mentioned in [1] and [2], coordination still can be achieved
only by means of trajectory tracking, although in the weakest
possible way. In some cases this condition may not be enough
to keep the coordination. Thus, exchanging information is still
needed.
Mathematically, coordination is formulated as the
problem of tracking collection of individual trajectories  𝐹 =
𝒒!! , 𝒒!! , … , 𝒒!" , so that the overall tracking error systems
𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 = 𝒒!! − 𝒒! , 𝒒!! − 𝒒! , … , 𝒒!" − 𝒒! = 𝒆𝟏 , 𝒆𝟐, … . , 𝒆𝒎
goes to zero as time goes to infinity.
To achieve the goal, the controller is equipped with
coupling terms that are other robot individual tracking errors.
For the unicycle robot, the controller is [2]:
𝑣!"# cos 𝑒!"# + 𝑘!" 𝑒!"#
𝑣!
= sin 𝑒!"#
𝜔! 𝜔!"# + 𝑘!" 𝑣!" 𝑒!"# + 𝑘!" 𝑒!"#
𝑒!"#
!
!" 𝑒!"# − 𝑒!"
𝑘! 𝑒!"
! !
!!!,!!! 1 + 𝑒!"# + 𝑒!"
formation pattern. If the control parameters are chosen so that
!" !" !" !"
 𝑘! = 𝑘! , 𝑘! = 𝑘! ≥ 0, and 𝑘!" , 𝑘!" , 𝑘!" , 𝑘!" , 𝑘!" > 0  and
it is assumed that messages are received by the corresponding
robots without delay, then the controller given in (5) and (6)
renders origin of the 𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 = 𝒒!! − 𝒒! , 𝒒!! − 𝒒! , … , 𝒒!" −
𝒒! globally asymptotically stable (GAS).
Proof of Theorem 2.
The stability is proven using Lyapunov functions. To simplify
the analysis, the system is categorized into three subsystems.
The subsystems represent the types of robots exist in the
system. Using the theory that states if a subsystem is GAS
using Lyapunov function, then the overall system is also GAS
if there is no switching in systems, the error dynamics are
analyzed. The subsystem are as follow:
1. A subsystem S1, where ∀𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ 𝑚 is a unicycle type. In
this condition the system becomes a homogeny unicycle
systems, which is similar as in [2] and its error dynamics
is GAS. All stability proof follows the one given in [2].
2. A subsystem S2, where ∀𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ 𝑚 is an omni wheels type.
In this condition the system becomes a homogeny omni
wheels system.
3. A subsystem S3, where 𝑖, 𝑗 ∈ 𝑚 is either unicycle or omni
wheels., i.e. the case of mixed mobile robot systems.
Stability proof for S2
Consider a Lyapunof function 𝑽𝟐 = 𝒆𝑻𝒔𝒚𝒔 𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 . For S2, the
errors are all coming from omni wheels mobile robots. Thus,
the derivative of 𝑽𝟐 can be expressed as:
𝒎
= 𝒆𝑻𝒔𝒚𝒔 𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 𝒆!!"  (𝒒!"# − 𝒒!" )
𝑽𝟐
𝒊!𝟏
(5)
𝒎

+ !
= 𝒆!!"   𝒒!"# − 𝐴 𝐴!! (𝒒!" + 𝒌𝒆!
!" 𝑒!"# − 𝑒!" 𝒊!𝟏
𝑘! 𝑒!"
! !
!!!,!!! 1 + 𝑒!"# + 𝑒!"
!
𝑒!!! − 𝑒!"
As for the omni wheels robot, the modified controller is !"
𝑘! 𝑒!"
formulated as follows: !!!,!!! !
1 + 𝑒!"# !
+ 𝑒!"
!
!" 𝑒!!! − 𝑒!" + !
𝑒!"# − 𝑒!"
𝑘! 𝑒!" !"
𝑘! 𝑒!"
! !
!!!,!!! 1+ 𝑒!"# + 𝑒!" !!!,!!! !
1 + 𝑒!"# !
+ 𝑒!"
!! !
𝒗𝒊 = 𝐴 (𝒒!"# + 𝒌𝒆!" ) + 𝑒!"# − 𝑒!" (6) 0
!"
𝑘! 𝑒!" 𝒎

!!!,!!! !
1 + 𝑒!"# !
+ 𝑒!" = −𝒌𝒆!!" 𝒆!" + 𝜑
𝒊!𝟏
0
For unicycle i, j-th robot can be either unicycle or omni wheels !
!" 𝑒!!! − 𝑒!"
and vice versa for the omni wheels mobile robot. Given the 𝑘! 𝑒!"
! !
!!!,!!! 1 + 𝑒!"# + 𝑒!"
controller in (5) and (6), for a mixed group of unicycle and
omni wheels mobile robots, the following theorem holds. 𝜑 = −𝒆!!" !
!" 𝑒!"# − 𝑒!"
𝑘! 𝑒!"
! !
Theorem 2. There exist m-mobile robots, which can be either !!!,!!! 1 + 𝑒!"# + 𝑒!"
unicycle or omni wheels mobile robots. The robots are tracking 0
the given references trajectories that in overall create a spatial = 0, because of the coupling gain choices
Thus, errors in keeping the relative time varying distance between the
𝒎
robots.
𝑽𝟐 = −𝒌𝒆!!" 𝒆!" ≤ 0 (7) If 𝑃!
!"#$
=0, it means that all robots maintain the desired
𝒊!𝟏
relative distances, i.e. the formation is kept. It is to be noted
which is negative definite. This shows that the controller in (6) !"#$
renders the origin of the error dynamics of subsystem S2, i.e. a that 𝑃! can indicate a good formation shape but the one that
group of omni wheels mobile robots, globally asymptotically equals to a rotation mirror of the desired formation shape.
!" !" !" !"
stable (GAS) because of the choice of 𝑘! = 𝑘! , 𝑘! = 𝑘! ≥ 0.
1

Stability proof for S3 0.8

For S3, errors are coming from either unicycle or omni wheels. 0.6

Suppose, that i is a unicycle and j is an omni wheels. Consider 0.4

a Lyapunof function 𝑽𝟑 = 𝒆𝑻𝒔𝒚𝒔 𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 . In this case, the 0.2
𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 = [𝒆𝒖𝒊    𝒆𝒐𝒋 ]𝑻 . Using the given controller in (5) and (6), the
1

y [m]
2
0
derivative of the Lyapunov function contains the unicycle part -0.2
3
4
and the omni wheels part. For the omni wheels, the results are
-0.4
similar to the results in the subsystem S2 due to the specific
structure of the controller and the coupling gain choices. -0.6

Similar condition applies for the unicycle part. As presented -0.8

in [2], the addition of omni wheels does will not affect the -1
-1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Lyapunov condition due to the specific controller and coupling x [m]
gain choices. Thus, the derivative of the Lyapunov function is Fig.3. The reference trajectories of the robots.
simply:
𝑽𝟑 = −𝒌𝒆!!" 𝒆!" −𝒌𝒆!!" 𝒆!" ≤ 0 (8) Table 1. Simulation scenarios
Formation shape (FS)
which is negative definite. This implies that the controller
given in (5) and (6) renders the origin of the error dynamics of
the mixed system globally asymptotically stable (GAS).

Since in all subsystems S1, S2, and S3 the controllers in (5)

and (6) render the origin o the error dynamics 𝒆𝒔𝒚𝒔 GAS, it can
be concluded that the controller in (5) and (6) renders the
complete mixed unicycle and omni wheels mobile robot group
globally asymptotically stable. n

IV. SIMULATION RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Robot type (type)

The sequence indicates the type of the robots in the formation from
A. Control parameters, simulation scenarios and performance robot 1 to 4 respectively; ‘u’ is for unicycle, ‘o’ is for omni wheels
indicators.
The controller is validated by means of simulation. The ID 1: o-o-o-o; ID 2: u-u-u-u; ID 3: u-o-o-o; ID 4: u-o-o-u;
following control parameters are used: 𝑘!"# = 0.4, 𝑘!"# = ID 5: u-o-u-o; ID 6: o-u-o-u; ID 7: o-u-u-o
!" !"
100, 𝑘!"# = 0.5, 𝑘!"# = 2, 𝑘!"# = 1, 𝑘!"# = 1,  𝑘! = 𝑘! =
Communication topologies (com top)
!" !"
0.06,  𝑘! = 𝑘! = 10. The bidirectional arros indicates that the robots are
A group of 4 robots is given a task to move in an-8- communicating.
shape like trajectory as depicted in Figure 3. Different desired
formation shape, type of robots in the group and ID 1: all robots communicates to each other
ID 2: 1 ßà2ßà3ßà4; ID 3: 1 ßà2ßà3ßà4ßà1
communication topologies are investigated. The summary of
ID 4: 1 ßà2, 1 ßà3, 1 ßà4; ID 5: 1 ßà2, 3 ßà4
parameters choices is given in Table 1. ID 6: 1 ßà3, 2 ßà4; ID 7: no communication between robots
To compare the performance of the controllers in each
scenario, a RMS-like performance indicator is used [1],[2]:
! ! ! To demonstrate the coordination, during the experiments, at
!"#$ 1 !
different times, a robot is simulated to drive away from its
𝑃! = 𝛿!" 𝑘 (8)
𝑙 current position. Thus, the effect of adding coupling gains can
!!! !!!!! !!!
be investigated.
where m is the number of robots in the systems, l is the number
of data in the simulation/experiments, and 𝛿!" = ∆!"# −   ∆!" are
B. Simulation results and analysis On the other hand, regardless the robot types and formation
1
1
shapes, the communication topologies have more influence to
0.8
2
3
the performance. Among all combinations, when all robots
!"#$
4
communicate, 𝑃! has the smallest values. At the opposite
0.6
!"#$
side, when less robots share individual tracking errors, 𝑃!
0.4
tends to grow.
0.2 Figure 7 and 8 show some slices of the results shown in
Figure 5 and 6. These figures indicate that no information
y [m]

0
sharing does not always means the worst performance.
−0.2 Although adding more information can increase robustness, it
has to done correctly according to the desired coordination and
−0.4
type of robot in the group. Thus, to have a strong coordination,
−0.6 it is suggested to have complete communication between the
−0.8
robots. However, this requires a large communication
bandwidth.
−1
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m]
0.7
1 1
2 0.8
0.65
3
0.8
4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6 0.55
0.4
pE 0.5 0.5

0.2
0.4 0.45
y [m]

0
0.3 0.4

−0.2
0.2 0.35

−0.4
0.1 0.3
0
−0.6
2 0.25
4 7
−0.8 6 0.2
6 5
4
3
8 2
−1 1
−1 −0.8 −0.6 −0.4 −0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x [m] robot types com topologies
!"#$
Fig. 4. The resulting movements for platoon group ‘o-u-u-o’. Top: no Fig. 5. 𝑃! from simulation usig “triangle” formation.
information sharing; Down: fully coupled

Figure 4 shows the example of robot movements in one 0.9 0.7

scenario. The top figure shows the resulting movements where 0.8
0.65

there is no communication between the robots. It can be seen 0.6

that there is no reaction from other robots, i.e. formation is 0.7

achieved only by means of trajectory tracking. On the other 0.55

0.6
hand, in Figure 5 it can be observed that one a robot is off the 0.5
pE

trajectory, other robots reacts to the perturbation in order to 0.5

0.45
keep the overall formation as the references. Less
communication sharing means the communication between 0.4 0.4

robots cannot be done peer-to-peer, which means reactions to 0.3 0.35

perturbation maybe delayed or even cannot be executed.

0.3
Figure 5 and 6 show the values of the performance 0.2
0
indicators from the experimental results using the “triangle” 5
0.25

and “platoon” formation shape. 10 2 3 4 5 6 7

1
The results in Figure 5 and 6 shows that for varying robot
robot types com topologies
type in the groups, the controllers also performs differently
although the effect cannot be justified clearly. The simulation !"#$
Fig. 6. 𝑃! from simulation usig “platoon” formation.
results sugges that mixed robots tends to give a better
performance compares to all unicycle or all omni wheels
robots.
 0.7
triange, o−u−o−u
V. CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE WORKS
0.69

0.68
In this paper we present controllers that achieve globally
asymptotically stable of the tracking error dynamics of the
mixed group of unicycle and omni wheels mobile robots.
0.67

0.66
The coordination between the robots can be achieved by
sharing individual tracking errors between the robots. The
pE

0.65

0.64 robots require to have a bidirectional communication, i.e. if i

0.63 shares messages to j, then j has to shares messages to i.
0.62 Simulation results suggest that more information sharing,
0.61
regardless the formation shape and type of robots in the group
0.6
tends to increase the robustness in coordinating the movements
1 2 3 4
com topologies
5 6 7
under perturbations.
0.36
triange, u−o−o−o Since the controllers require bidirectional communication,
an improvement in the controller is required to relax the
0.34
condition. Furthermore, the delay in exchanging individual
tracking errors needs to be taken into account explicitly in the
0.32 controllers.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
pE

0.3

This work has been funded by Ministry of Research,

0.28
Technology and Higher Education through Hibah Fundamental
Program 2015.
0.26

REFERENCES
0.24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [1] S.Adinandra, A-M. Diaz, H. Nijmeijer, “Simultaneous trajectory
com topologies
tracking and formation keeping for a group of unicycle mobile
!"#$ robots”, in IEEE Conference on Control, Systems and Industrial
Fig. 7. Slices of 𝑃! from simulation usig “triangle” formation.
Informatics (ICCSII), pp.89-94,2013.
platoon, o−u−o−u
[2] S.Adinandra, “Coordinated trajectory tracking for a group of
0.71
unicycle mobile robots”, Robionetics, pp.88-93, 2013.
0.7 [3] S.Adinandra, E. Schreurs, H. Nijmeijer, “A practical MPC for a
0.69
group of unicycles”, In IFAC NMPC, pp.472-477, 2012.
[4] A. Sadowska, T. van den Broek, H. Huijberts, D. Kostic, N. van
0.68
de Wouw, and H. Nijmeijer, “A Virtual Structure Approach to
0.67 Formation Control of Unicycle Mobile Robots using Mutual
Coupling”, In International Journal of Control, Vol.84, No.11,
pE

0.66
pp.1886-1902, 2011.
0.65
[5] A.S. Conceicao, A.P. Moreira, P.J.Costa, “Model Identification
0.64 of a four wheeled omnidirectional mobile robot”, 2006.
0.63
[6] X.Li, A. Zell, ”Motion control of an omnidirectional mobile
robot”, in International Conference on Informatics in Control,
Automation, and Robotics (ICINCO), 2007.
0.62

0.61
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [7] L. Gracia, J. Tornero, “Kinematic control of wheeled mobile
com topologies robots”, in Latin American Applied Research, Vol.38, pp.7-16,
0.35
platoon, u−o−o−o
2008.
[8] D-S. Kim, W.H. Kwon, H.S. Park, “Geometric kinematics and
0.34
applications of a mobile robot”, in International Journal of
0.33 Control, Automation, Vol.1, No.3, pp. 376-384, 2003.
0.32
[9] D. Luo, T. Schauer, M. Roth, J. Raisch, “Position and orientation
control of omni-directional mobile rehabilitation robot”, in IEE
0.31
Multi-conference on Systems and Control, pp.50-56, 2012.
pE

0.3

0.29

0.28

0.27

0.26
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
com topologies
!"#$
Fig. 8. Slices of 𝑃! from simulation usig “platoon” formation.