pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.05663 · v1 · pith:NP4XF5HInew · submitted 2026-06-04 · 💻 cs.RO

Preserving Full 6-DOF Actuation Under Abrupt Total Rotor Failures: Passive Fault-Tolerant Flight Control Using a Biaxial-Tilt Hexacopter

Yipeng Yang , Yiqiao Tang , Hao Zhang , Jinqi Jiang , Jianfeng He , Rumo Chen , Xinghu Yu , Zhan Li
show 1 more author
Huijun Gao
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-28 01:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords fault-tolerant controlrotor failurehexacopterpassive controlbiaxial tilt6-DOF actuationwrench spacemultirotor
0
0 comments X

The pith

A biaxial-tilt hexacopter preserves full 6-DOF actuation after abrupt rotor failures using passive control that needs no fault detection.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Conventional multirotors rapidly lose the ability to generate arbitrary forces and torques when rotors fail suddenly. This paper shows that a biaxial-tilt overactuated hexacopter design keeps the post-failure vehicle fully actuated in representative cases. Two passive methods achieve continued control: one combines a high-order fully actuated controller with a linear extended state observer, while the other uses model-reference adaptive allocation with momentum-based wrench estimation. Simulations and flight tests confirm stable hovering and 6-DOF trajectory tracking under single and multiple failures, with larger recovery margins than uniaxial-tilt or coplanar designs.

Core claim

The biaxial-tilt hexacopter extends the inscribed-sphere metric of attainable wrench space by adding a transient-wrench-jump term, allowing quantitative assessment of feasibility under up to three simultaneous rotor failures. Passive fault tolerance is realized without fault detection, isolation, or mode switching through either a high-order fully actuated controller paired with a linear extended state observer or model-reference adaptive control allocation that compensates allocation biases via momentum-based estimation. Hardware experiments demonstrate that these schemes sustain stable operation and outperform alternative hexacopter configurations in recovery capability.

What carries the argument

The biaxial-tilt overactuated hexacopter (BTO) configuration, which supplies redundant tilt axes so that the system remains fully actuated after representative rotor failures.

If this is right

  • Stable hovering and 6-DOF trajectory tracking remain feasible under single and multiple rotor failures.
  • The BTO provides larger recovery margins than uniaxial-tilt and coplanar hexacopters under the same failure scenarios.
  • Onboard-sensor experiments show continued performance under wind disturbance, extreme outdoor conditions, narrow-frame traversal, and contact-based tasks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The absence of explicit fault detection could simplify certification and reduce computational load for safety-critical multirotor applications.
  • The same passive allocation and observer approach may transfer to other overactuated aerial platforms that retain full actuation after partial actuator loss.
  • Quantitative wrench-margin comparisons could guide selection of tilt angles during the mechanical design of future redundant multirotors.

Load-bearing premise

The design and analysis apply only to specific abrupt rotor-failure cases where the remaining rotors leave the vehicle fully actuated, without any need to detect or identify the failures.

What would settle it

A hardware test in which the vehicle, after two or more rotors fail abruptly during hovering or trajectory tracking, loses stability or deviates from the commanded path under either of the proposed passive controllers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.05663 by Hao Zhang, Huijun Gao, Jianfeng He, Jinqi Jiang, Rumo Chen, Xinghu Yu, Yipeng Yang, Yiqiao Tang, Zhan Li.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Fault-tolerant hovering results of the BTO with the proposed AL-PFTC [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Structures of UAVs with tilting actuators. (a) Quadcopter with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The structure and coordinate definitions of the BTO prototype. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The AFS and ATS of three models under different fault conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Overall CL-PFTC framework. ① corresponds to a baseline HOFA controller (15); ② corresponds to LESO compensator (17); ③ corresponds to (27) and Algorithm 1 rotor faults. In this framework, the effects of rotor failures are modeled as lumped disturbances in the controller layer. The overall structure of the proposed CL-PFTC framework is illustrated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fault severity curves. Fault conditions are sorted from lowest to highest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: AFS comparison result. 2) MATC Handling: As mentioned in Remark 5, the con￾straint of outer servos is handled by Algorithm 1: Proof : To prove the validity of Algorithm 1, multiply both sides of (3) by  R⊤ A1B 03 03 R⊤ A1B  to transform wae/B into the FA1 frame. The right side becomes:             ∆x1 + 1 2 (∆x2 − ∆x3) − √ 3 2 (∆y2 + ∆y3) √ 3 2 (∆x2 + ∆x3) + ∆y1 + 1 2 (∆y2 − ∆y3) P6 i=1 fi (3… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: AL-PFTC framework. Block ① corresponds to the baseline HOFA controller (15); block③ corresponds to allocator (27) and Algorithm 1; block ④ corresponds to the virtual control allocation system (30) and (33); block ⑤ corresponds to the estimator (39) and (41); ⑦ corresponds to the adaptive law (44) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The CL-PFTC simulation with the 4th rotor complete failure under three typical hovering attitudes. The position and attitude responses of the BTO, UTO, and CCU under different initial attitudes are shown during fault injection and recovery phases. TABLE III THE POSITION AND ATTITUDE RMSE UNDER DIFFERENT CONDITIONS Condition RMSEp [m] RMSEθ [deg] BTO UTO BTO UTO Roll = 0◦ 0.0154 0.0160 1.9046 1.9251 Roll = … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fully autonomous fault-tolerant flight platform. The actuator group [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Indoor trajectory tracking scene setup. The reference trajectory is defined as (50), with Ax = Ay = 0.8 m, Az = −0.8 m, ω1 = ω2 = π 8 rad/s, Ar = Ap = π 9 rad, and Aψ = 0.035 rad/s. The tra￾jectory lasts for 80 seconds, and the fault sequence Λs = {Λ0, Λ1, Λ0, Λ5, Λ56, Λ0, Λ16, Λ136} is injected uniformly during the experiment. Furthermore, a Figure-8 trajectory tracking experiment is conducted outdoors t… view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Indoor pose trajectory tracking results of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Fault recovery results under fault Λ136. The red arms indicate the complete failure of the corresponding rotors, while the green arms indicate normal operation. (a) BTOAL framework. (b) UTOAL framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Time-overlaid spatial trajectories of the BTO during the outdoor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Outdoor Figure-8 trajectory tracking result. C. Flight Task Experiments To further evaluate the fault-tolerant performance of the proposed frameworks under realistic mission-level conditions, a set of representative autonomous flight tasks are conducted. Compared with basic hovering and trajectory tracking exper￾iments, these tasks involve non-zero attitudes, environmen￾tal disturbances, and task-specific… view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Aerial writing flight task result overview. The handwriting experiment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Representative flight task experiments. Left: Traversal task through a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Conventional multirotors suffer from a rapid collapse of attainable wrench space (AWS) under abrupt total rotor failures, rendering full 6-DOF recovery physically impossible. This paper addresses passive fault-tolerant flight of a biaxial-tilt overactuated hexacopter (BTO) under abrupt total rotor failures that are a priori unknown to the controller. The control design and analysis focus on representative abrupt rotor-failure cases for which the post-failure system remains fully actuated, while no explicit fault detection, isolation, or fault-mode switching is assumed. First, we extend the inscribed-sphere metric of the AWS by incorporating the transient-wrench-jump term, enabling quantitative feasibility assessment under up to three simultaneous rotor failures and benchmarking against uniaxial-tilt and coplanar hexacopters. Second, we develop two computationally efficient passive schemes without relying on fault detection or online optimization. One scheme operates at the controller layer by combining a high-order fully actuated (HOFA) controller with a linear extended state observer (LESO) for lumped-disturbance rejection. The other scheme operates at the allocator layer by using model-reference adaptive control allocation with momentum-based wrench estimation to compensate for control-allocation biases. Simulations and flight experiments validate stable hovering and 6-DOF trajectory tracking under single and multiple rotor failures. Further systematic comparisons confirm that the BTO provides larger recovery margins than uniaxial-tilt and coplanar designs. Additional onboard-sensor-only experiments, including indoor tracking under wind disturbance, outdoor tracking under extreme conditions, narrow-frame traversal, and contact-based aerial writing, further validate the robustness of the proposed framework in complex operational environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

0 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a biaxial-tilt overactuated hexacopter (BTO) for passive fault-tolerant 6-DOF flight control under abrupt total rotor failures that remain unknown to the controller. It restricts analysis to representative cases where the post-failure system stays fully actuated, extends the inscribed-sphere AWS metric by adding a transient-wrench-jump term for quantitative assessment up to three failures, introduces two passive schemes (HOFA+LESO controller and model-reference adaptive allocation with momentum-based estimation), and reports validation via simulations and flight experiments for hovering, 6-DOF tracking, and comparisons showing larger recovery margins versus uniaxial-tilt and coplanar designs, plus additional robustness tests under wind, outdoor, and contact conditions.

Significance. If the experimental outcomes hold, the work provides a practical passive approach to maintaining full actuation after rotor failures without FDI or mode switching, which is valuable for UAV reliability. The metric extension enables direct benchmarking, the two-layer passive schemes are computationally efficient, and the multi-environment experiments (including wind disturbance and aerial writing) add credibility to the robustness claims. The scoped assumption on fully-actuated post-failure cases is explicitly stated and avoids over-extrapolation.

minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the validation claims are stated without any numerical results, error metrics, or failure-case definitions; adding one or two key quantitative outcomes (e.g., recovery margins or tracking RMSE) would strengthen the summary without altering the manuscript scope.
  2. [Metric extension section] The transient-wrench-jump term is introduced to extend the AWS metric, but its exact formulation and how it is computed from the allocation matrix should be cross-referenced to the relevant equation or appendix for reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

0 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive assessment of our work on passive fault-tolerant 6-DOF control for the biaxial-tilt hexacopter and for recommending minor revision. No specific major comments were provided in the report.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper introduces a biaxial-tilt hexacopter design, extends the inscribed-sphere AWS metric with a transient term, and proposes two passive control schemes (HOFA+LESO and adaptive allocation) without fault detection. These are validated via simulation and hardware experiments under scoped failure cases that preserve full actuation. No derivation step reduces by construction to a fitted parameter, self-defined quantity, or load-bearing self-citation; the central claims rest on the proposed architecture and external empirical outcomes rather than quantities defined in terms of the same data or prior author results.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only access prevents exhaustive enumeration; the primary identified domain assumption is that representative failure cases leave the system fully actuated.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Post-failure system remains fully actuated for the representative cases considered
    Paper explicitly restricts analysis to such cases while assuming no fault detection or mode switching.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5870 in / 1344 out tokens · 53362 ms · 2026-06-28T01:41:28.459585+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references

  1. [1]

    RACER: Rapid collaborative explo- ration with a decentralized multi-UA V system,

    B. Zhou, H. Xu, and S. Shen, “RACER: Rapid collaborative explo- ration with a decentralized multi-UA V system,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1816–1835, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    Past, present, and future of aerial robotic manipulators,

    A. Ollero, M. Tognon, A. Suarez, D. Lee, and A. Franchi, “Past, present, and future of aerial robotic manipulators,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 626–645, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    Impact-aware planning and control for aerial robots with suspended payloads,

    H. Wang, H. Li, B. Zhou, F. Gao, and S. Shen, “Impact-aware planning and control for aerial robots with suspended payloads,”IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 2478–2497, 2024

    2024

  4. [4]

    Design and optimal control of a tiltrotor mi- cro aerial vehicle for efficient omnidirectional flight,

    M. Allenspach, K. Bodie, M. Brunner, L. Rinsoz, Z. Taylor, M. Kamel, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Design and optimal control of a tiltrotor mi- cro aerial vehicle for efficient omnidirectional flight,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 39, no. 10-11, pp. 1305–1325, 2020

    2020

  5. [5]

    TiltDrone: A fully-actuated tilting quadrotor platform,

    P. Zheng, X. Tan, B. B. Kocer, E. Yang, and M. Kovac, “TiltDrone: A fully-actuated tilting quadrotor platform,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6845–6852, 2020

    2020

  6. [6]

    Optimal trajectory generation for time-to-contact based aerial robotic perching,

    H. Zhang, B. Cheng, and J. Zhao, “Optimal trajectory generation for time-to-contact based aerial robotic perching,”Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 016008, 2019

    2019

  7. [7]

    Controllability analysis for multirotor helicopter rotor degradation and failure,

    G.-X. Du, Q. Quan, B. Yang, and K.-Y . Cai, “Controllability analysis for multirotor helicopter rotor degradation and failure,”Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 38, no. 5, pp. 978–985, 2015

    2015

  8. [8]

    Uniform passive fault-tolerant control of a quadcopter with one, two, or three rotor failure,

    C. Ke, K.-Y . Cai, and Q. Quan, “Uniform passive fault-tolerant control of a quadcopter with one, two, or three rotor failure,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 39, no. 6, pp. 4297–4311, 2023

    2023

  9. [9]

    Fundamental actuation proper- ties of multirotors: Force–moment decoupling and fail–safe robustness,

    G. Michieletto, M. Ryll, and A. Franchi, “Fundamental actuation proper- ties of multirotors: Force–moment decoupling and fail–safe robustness,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 702–715, 2018

    2018

  10. [10]

    Incremental nonlinear fault-tolerant control of a quadrotor with complete loss of two opposing rotors,

    S. Sun, X. Wang, Q. Chu, and C. de Visser, “Incremental nonlinear fault-tolerant control of a quadrotor with complete loss of two opposing rotors,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 116–130, 2021

    2021

  11. [11]

    Design and experimental validation of robust self-scheduled fault-tolerant control laws for a multicopter uav,

    D.-T. Nguyen, D. Saussie, and L. Saydy, “Design and experimental validation of robust self-scheduled fault-tolerant control laws for a multicopter uav,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 26, no. 5, pp. 2548–2557, 2021

    2021

  12. [12]

    Servo integrated nonlinear model predictive control for overactuated tiltable-quadrotors,

    J. Li, J. Sugihara, and M. Zhao, “Servo integrated nonlinear model predictive control for overactuated tiltable-quadrotors,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 8770–8777, 2024

    2024

  13. [13]

    Modeling and control of FAST- Hex: A fully-actuated by synchronized-tilting hexarotor,

    M. Ryll, D. Bicego, and A. Franchi, “Modeling and control of FAST- Hex: A fully-actuated by synchronized-tilting hexarotor,” in2016 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). Daejeon, South Korea: IEEE, 2016, pp. 1689–1694

    2016

  14. [14]

    Fault-tolerant control of an overactuated UA V platform built on quadcopters and passive hinges,

    Y . Su, P. Yu, M. J. Gerber, L. Ruan, and T.-C. Tsao, “Fault-tolerant control of an overactuated UA V platform built on quadcopters and passive hinges,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 602–613, 2024

    2024

  15. [15]

    Design, modeling, and control of a coaxial drone,

    L. Chen, J. Xiao, Y . Zheng, N. A. Alagappan, and M. Feroskhan, “Design, modeling, and control of a coaxial drone,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 1650–1663, 2024

    2024

  16. [16]

    The voliro omniorientational hexa- copter: An agile and maneuverable tiltable-rotor aerial vehicle,

    M. Kamel, S. Verling, O. Elkhatib, C. Sprecher, P. Wulkop, Z. Taylor, R. Siegwart, and I. Gilitschenski, “The voliro omniorientational hexa- copter: An agile and maneuverable tiltable-rotor aerial vehicle,”IEEE Robotics & Automation Magazine, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 34–44, 2018

    2018

  17. [17]

    Quadplus: Design, mod- eling, and receding-horizon-based control of a hyperdynamic quadrotor,

    K. Singh, M. Mehndiratta, and M. Feroskhan, “Quadplus: Design, mod- eling, and receding-horizon-based control of a hyperdynamic quadrotor,” IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 1766–1779, 2022

    2022

  18. [18]

    A new overactuated multirotor: Prototype design, dynamics modeling, and control,

    Y . Yang, X. Yu, Z. Li, and M. V . Basin, “A new overactuated multirotor: Prototype design, dynamics modeling, and control,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, no. 8, pp. 9449–9459, 2024

    2024

  19. [19]

    Full-pose tracking control for aerial robotic systems with laterally bounded input force,

    A. Franchi, R. Carli, D. Bicego, and M. Ryll, “Full-pose tracking control for aerial robotic systems with laterally bounded input force,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 534–541, 2018

    2018

  20. [20]

    Fail-safe flight of a fully-actuated quadrotor in a single motor failure,

    S. J. Lee, I. Jang, and H. J. Kim, “Fail-safe flight of a fully-actuated quadrotor in a single motor failure,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6403–6410, 2020

    2020

  21. [21]

    A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part i: Fault diagnosis with model-based and signal-based approaches,

    Z. Gao, C. Cecati, and S. X. Ding, “A survey of fault diagnosis and fault-tolerant techniques—part i: Fault diagnosis with model-based and signal-based approaches,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 3757–3767, 2015. 19

    2015

  22. [22]

    Fault-tolerant control systems: A comparative study between active and passive approaches,

    J. Jiang and X. Yu, “Fault-tolerant control systems: A comparative study between active and passive approaches,”Annual Reviews in Control, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 60–72, 2012

    2012

  23. [23]

    Passive fault-tolerant control via sliding-mode-based Lyapunov redesign,

    M. A. Estrada, L. Fridman, and J. A. Moreno, “Passive fault-tolerant control via sliding-mode-based Lyapunov redesign,”IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, vol. 69, no. 10, pp. 6777–6788, 2024

    2024

  24. [24]

    Nonlinear MPC for quadrotor fault-tolerant control,

    F. Nan, S. Sun, P. Foehn, and D. Scaramuzza, “Nonlinear MPC for quadrotor fault-tolerant control,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 5047–5054, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    Nullspace-based control allocation of overactuated UA V platforms,

    Y . Su, P. Yu, M. J. Gerber, L. Ruan, and T.-C. Tsao, “Nullspace-based control allocation of overactuated UA V platforms,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 8094–8101, 2021

    2021

  26. [26]

    Adaptive control allocation for constrained systems,

    S. S. Tohidi, Y . Yildiz, and I. Kolmanovsky, “Adaptive control allocation for constrained systems,”Automatica, vol. 121, p. 109161, 2020

    2020

  27. [27]

    Downwash- aware control allocation for over-actuated UA V platforms,

    Y . Su, C. Chu, M. Wang, J. Li, L. Yang, Y . Zhu, and H. Liu, “Downwash- aware control allocation for over-actuated UA V platforms,” in2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2022, pp. 10 478–10 485

    2022

  28. [28]

    Reced- ing horizon-based fault-tolerant control of quadplus: an over-actuated quadrotor,

    M. Mehndiratta, K. Singh, E. Kayacan, and M. Feroskhan, “Reced- ing horizon-based fault-tolerant control of quadplus: an over-actuated quadrotor,” in2021 IEEE 17th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE), 2021, pp. 853–859

    2021

  29. [29]

    Configuration optimization and distributed formation control for tethered multirotor UAS,

    Y . Liu, F. Zhang, P. Huang, and Y . Lu, “Configuration optimization and distributed formation control for tethered multirotor UAS,”IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 3434–3445, 2023

    2023

  30. [30]

    Discrete adaptive control allocation,

    S. S. Tohidi and Y . Yildiz, “Discrete adaptive control allocation,” in 2021 American Control Conference (ACC). New Orleans, LA, USA: IEEE, 2021, pp. 3731–3736

    2021

  31. [31]

    Adaptive fault tolerant flight control for input re- dundant systems using a nonlinear reference model,

    H. Park and Y . Kim, “Adaptive fault tolerant flight control for input re- dundant systems using a nonlinear reference model,”IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 57, no. 5, pp. 3337–3356, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    External wrench estimation, colli- sion detection, and reflex reaction for flying robots,

    T. Tomi ´c, C. Ott, and S. Haddadin, “External wrench estimation, colli- sion detection, and reflex reaction for flying robots,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 6, pp. 1467–1482, 2017

    2017

  33. [33]

    High-order fully actuated system approaches: Part iii. robust control and high-order backstepping,

    G. Duan, “High-order fully actuated system approaches: Part iii. robust control and high-order backstepping,”International Journal of Systems Science, vol. 52, no. 5, pp. 952–971, 2021

    2021

  34. [34]

    Capabilities of extended state observer for estimating uncertainties,

    X. Yang and Y . Huang, “Capabilities of extended state observer for estimating uncertainties,” in2009 American Control Conference. St. Louis, MO, USA: IEEE, 2009, pp. 3700–3705

    2009

  35. [35]

    Adaptive output feedback based on closed-loop reference models,

    T. E. Gibson, Z. Qu, A. M. Annaswamy, and E. Lavretsky, “Adaptive output feedback based on closed-loop reference models,”IEEE Trans- actions on Automatic Control, vol. 60, no. 10, pp. 2728–2733, 2015

    2015

  36. [36]

    FAST-LIVO2: Fast, direct LiDAR–inertial–visual odometry,

    C. Zheng, W. Xu, Z. Zou, T. Hua, C. Yuan, D. He, B. Zhou, Z. Liu, J. Lin, F. Zhu, Y . Ren, R. Wang, F. Meng, and F. Zhang, “FAST-LIVO2: Fast, direct LiDAR–inertial–visual odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 41, pp. 326–346, 2025

    2025