arXiv preprint ·
How Tuning, Reference Preview, Actuator Modeling, and Fallback Policies Change Quadrotor Controller Comparisons: A Reproducible Simulation Study
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Quadrotor controller comparisons commonly report a single tracking error, although the resulting ranking also depends on tuning effort, reference information, actuator prediction, optimizer fallback, and command timing. We quantify these effects for cascade PID, hover LQR, boundary-layer sliding-mode control (BL-SMC), linear MPC with LQR fallback (LMPC-F), a preview-enabled LMPC-F, and a geometric $SO(3)$ controller on a common nonlinear plant with rotor gyroscopic coupling, motor lag, and saturation. A primary study (556 episodes at 50~Hz) combines matched twelve-candidate tuning, 400 paired evaluation episodes, and a 48-cell MPC factorial; a confirmation study (1462 episodes) repeats the evaluation on 50 fresh realizations with tuning budgets of 12, 24, and 48 candidates. A matched twelve-candidate tuning protocol changed the mean-RMSE ordering obtained with the fixed baseline settings, moving BL-SMC from last to first; the new ordering recurred on the fresh realizations, and a 48-candidate budget left it unchanged. Reference preview substantially reduced MPC tracking error and, on the figure-eight task, removed fallback activity. On an abrupt step, the outcome depended on the interplay between fallback policy, predictor, and actuator authority. Command timing also changed the outcome: replaying measured command-call delays terminated three of four nominal MPC configurations on a desktop computer and all four on a Raspberry Pi~5, whereas capping the solver at 100 iterations removed every deadline miss in the tested nominal timing profiles. Controller rankings therefore depend not only on tracking accuracy but also on the tuning protocol, reference information, fallback behavior, and implementation timing. We propose a reporting checklist covering tracking accuracy, tuning effort, completion and failure rates, fallback activity, applied-input variation, and command timing.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Robotics
RobotAgentBench: Towards Open-world Robot Autonomy
A Singularity Avoiding Track Model for Race Car Optimization
Dream to Assist: Intent-Conditioned World Models for Shared Vehicle Control
Ground Sample Distance Constrained k-Coverage Viewpoint Planning via Set Multi-Cover Formulation
Video World Models Need Predictable Latents
Get the few papers worth your time in Robotics every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.