Fuzzy Game-Theoretic Predictive Control for Integrated Vehicle Stability and Energy-Efficient Motion Management

Authors

  • Leif Coleman Department of Computer Science, University of North Texas, Denton, TX, USA. Author
  • Maurice Webb Department of Computer Science, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA. Author
  • Sawyer Jarvinen Department of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA. Author

Keywords:

fuzzy control; game theory; model predictive control; vehicle stability; energy-efficient motion management; cyber-physical systems; safety governance

Abstract

The increasing intelligence of vehicles transforms motion management from a mechanical regulation problem into a complex cyber-physical coordination task. This paper examines a class of control architectures that combine fuzzy inference, game-theoretic decision making, and predictive control for integrated vehicle stability and energy-efficient motion management. Rather than presenting numerical algorithms, the discussion focuses on system-level structural trade-offs among actuation authority, trajectory tracking, energy consumption, robustness, and policy compliance. The paper argues that advanced vehicle control should be interpreted as a multi-objective negotiation process in which stability requirements and energy performance objectives operate as partially conflicting players under uncertainty. Fuzzy rule bases provide an interpretable mechanism for representing uncertain tire-road interactions, driver intent, and environmental disturbances. Game-theoretic concepts allow the control architecture to balance competing objectives without assigning fixed priority to either stability or energy efficiency. Predictive control supplies anticipatory constraint handling over a finite horizon. The article analyzes how these components can be integrated into layered automotive control infrastructure, including sensing, estimation, arbitration, actuation, and cloud-assisted learning. It discusses deployment constraints, real-time computational loads, safety certification, robustness degradation, fairness in shared infrastructure, and sustainability implications. Cross-domain comparisons with energy management in hybrid vehicles and cooperative autonomous fleets are provided. The analysis identifies unresolved tensions between interpretability and learning, centralization and edge autonomy, and short-term energy optimization and long-term dependability. The paper concludes that the value of fuzzy game-theoretic predictive control lies less in replacing conventional vehicle stability controllers than in creating a governance layer that makes trade-offs explicit, auditable, and adaptable across heterogeneous operating contexts.

References

1. Borrelli, F., Bemporad, A., & Morari, M. (2017). Predictive control for linear and hybrid systems. Cambridge University Press.

2. Camacho, E. F., & Bordons, C. (2013). Model predictive control. Springer Science & Business Media.

3. Takagi, T., & Sugeno, M. (1985). Fuzzy identification of systems and its applications to modeling and control. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-15(1), 116-132.

4. Precup, R.-E., & Hellendoorn, H. (2011). A survey on industrial applications of fuzzy control. Computers in Industry, 62(3), 213-226.

5. Zhang, C., Zhang, H., Qiao, J., Yuan, D., & Zhang, M. (2019). Deep transfer learning for intelligent cellular traffic prediction based on cross-domain big data. IEEE Journal on Selected Areas in Communications, 37(6), 1389-1401.

6. Cai, G., Sun, C., Shu, Y., Bai, S., Yin, G., & He, W. (2026). Fuzzy Game-theoretic tube model predictive control for integrated vehicle stability system. IEEE Transactions on Fuzzy Systems.

7. Myerson, R. B. (1991). Game theory: Analysis of conflict. Harvard University Press.

8. Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48-49.

9. Mayne, D. Q., Rawlings, J. B., Rao, C. V., & Scokaert, P. O. M. (2000). Constrained model predictive control: Stability and optimality. Automatica, 36(6), 789-814.

10. Qin, S. J., & Badgwell, T. A. (2003). A survey of industrial model predictive control technology. Control Engineering Practice, 11(7), 733-764.

11. Rajamani, R. (2012). Vehicle dynamics and control. Springer Science & Business Media.

12. Paden, B., Čáp, M., Yong, S. Z., Yershov, D., & Frazzoli, E. (2016). A survey of motion planning and control techniques for self-driving urban vehicles. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, 1(1), 33-55.

13. Sciarretta, A., & Guzzella, L. (2007). Control of hybrid electric vehicles: Optimal energy management and control. IEEE Control Systems Magazine, 27(2), 60-70.

14. Guo, H., Cao, D., Chen, H., Sun, Z., & Hu, Y. (2019). Model predictive path following control for autonomous cars considering a measurable disturbance: Implementation, testing, and verification. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 118, 41-60.

15. Mendel, J. M. (2017). Uncertain rule-based fuzzy systems: Introduction and new directions. Springer.

16. Bellman, R. E., & Zadeh, L. A. (1970). Decision-making in a fuzzy environment. Management Science, 17(4), B-141-B-164.

17. Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.-C., Randell, B., & Landwehr, C. (2004). Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 1(1), 11-33.

18. Floridi, L., & Taddeo, M. (2016). What is data ethics? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 374(2083), 20160360.

19. Stone, P., Kaminka, G. A., Kraus, S., & Rosenschein, J. S. (2010). Ad hoc autonomous agent teams: Collaboration without pre-coordination. AI Magazine, 31(4), 68-77.

20. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015). Deep learning. Nature, 521(7553), 436-444.

Downloads

Published

2026-07-22