Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 22 references

On rapid parallel tuning of controllers of a swarm of MAVs -- distribution strategies of the updated gains

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A swarm of effectively identical MAVs can tune its altitude-controller gains in parallel, either suppressing noise by averaging cost readings or cutting tuning time by splitting the gain search.

desk verdict A useful but under-validated extension of EQL tuning to swarms: the averaging mode is supported, the time-saving mode is plausible but lacks a measured baseline and is exposed to between-platform bias. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07523 v1 pith:ZQGENTSL submitted 2025-05-12 cs.RO

Dariusz Horla , Wojciech Giernacki , Vít Krátký , Petr Štibinger , Tomáš Báča , Martin Saska This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords controllergaintuningparallelswarmofMAVsmodel-freeoptimizationequal-divisionmethodzero-orderaltitudecontrolperformanceindexaveraging
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper is trying to establish that tuning the altitude-controller gains of a micro aerial vehicle need not be a slow, sequential, trial-and-error exercise: if several effectively identical vehicles are available, the search over gains can be distributed across them so that the swarm either reaches a good gain set sooner or reaches a more repeatable one under noisy measurements. The proposed procedure is model-free, uses only basic sensory data, and has a running time that is fixed in advance, because the underlying equal-division (EQL) search needs a known number of cost evaluations per parameter. Two distribution rules are compared: publishing the same gains to every vehicle and averaging the reported cost functions to suppress noise, and publishing different gains to different vehicles to test several configurations in parallel and shorten the tuning horizon. The claim is supported by simulation campaigns and by real outdoor flights with a pair of hexarotors, and it matters because controller tuning in practice can consume days, while a deterministic parallel procedure could be run in the field, even in stages between battery swaps.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the equal-division (EQL) zero-order search, a bracketing rule that at each iteration evaluates two interior gain values inside the current uncertainty interval and narrows the interval according to which value gives the lower cost. It is run as a bootstrapped one-parameter-at-a-time loop alternating between the two altitude gains, and it carries over one of the two test points to the next iteration, so after the first round only a single new cost evaluation is needed per parameter, saving nearly 40% of the experiments. On the control side, the machinery is a three-state state machine on the master vehicle -- IDLE, FLYING, OPTIMIZE -- synchronized by semaphores, which parcels out the reference primitives, collects each vehicle's accumulated cost $J^{(i)}_j$, and publishes the updated gains; the distribution rule for those updated gains (identical-to-all with averaging, or different-per-vehicle) is what turns a single-vehicle tuner into a parallel swarm tuner.

What would settle it

Run the AVG mode repeatedly with two vehicles and then with four vehicles under the same outdoor conditions; if the standard deviation of the final tuned gains does not decrease as the number of vehicles grows, the claimed noise-reduction benefit is not real. Alternatively, fly the no-AVG mode with two vehicles of measurably different mass and check whether the gain that is best for the vehicle that tested it is also best for the other vehicle; if not, parallel testing is trading correctness for speed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the EQL zero-order tuning loop, originally designed for a single vehicle, can be executed by a swarm without changing the search logic: a master vehicle runs the optimization state machine, publishes gain updates to all vehicles, and each slave simply flies a reference primitive and returns a scalar cost. If all vehicles receive the same gains, their cost functions are averaged before the optimization step, which the experiments show reduces the scatter of the final gains under noisy altitude measurements; if each vehicle receives a different gain pair, one EQL iteration tests multiple points at once, which shortens the wall-clock tuning time. The method requires an even number of identical MAVs, is deterministic in duration because the number of iterations is fixed by the tolerance $\epsilon$, and is demonstrated on the two altitude gains $k_P$ and $k_D$ of a geometric tracking controller, both in simulation and in outdoor flights with a pair of real hexarotors. The authors summarize the contribution as a reliable, scalable, time-deterministic, model-free procedure that improves tuning results while decreasing tuning time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the vehicles in the swarm are effectively identical, so that for the same gains each vehicle's cost reading differs only by measurement noise and averaging cannot introduce bias; if one vehicle is heavier, less responsive, or sitting in a different wind field, the averaged or shared result can point the tuning toward the wrong gains.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With fixed tolerance $\epsilon$ and known $K$, the total number of cost evaluations is known before takeoff, so a tuning flight can be planned inside battery endurance limits.
  • Averaging identical-gain cost readings across the swarm reduces the standard deviation of the final gains, as the simulation results show for both unloaded and payload-carrying platforms.
  • Testing different gain configurations on different vehicles reduces the tuning horizon, since one EQL round covers $N$ points of the search space instead of one.
  • For $N>2$, the two strategies can be combined: some vehicles replicate gains for averaging while others explore different gains, because the paper notes that results without AVG can still be averaged for $N>2$.
  • The staged, deterministic structure means the tuning procedure can be interrupted for battery changes or hardware fixes and resumed, leading toward a bank of controller gains for different payloads.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: if the identical-platform assumption holds, the no-AVG speedup should scale roughly as $N$ for even $N$, since each EQL round tests $N$ gain pairs; the paper demonstrates only $N=2$, so the scaling law is my inference, not its claim.
  • Testable extension: the AVG noise-reduction claim implies that final-gain variance should fall as $1/N$ when the number of replicate vehicles grows, which could be checked directly by repeating the tuning campaign with $N=2,4,8$.
  • Testable extension: the same distribution logic should transfer to other zero-order line-search rules with the carry-over property, because the 40% saving comes from EQL's reuse of a tested point, not from the specific interval rule.
  • The flatness of the logged cost surface noted in the paper suggests that repeatability, not raw performance, is the main practical benefit of averaging; an operator might therefore prefer AVG for final refinement and no-AVG for initial exploration, a mixed protocol the paper does not itself propose.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a parallel tuning method for the altitude controller gains (kP, kD) of a swarm of MAVs, extending the EQL zero-order optimization algorithm. Two distribution strategies are presented: AVG, in which all MAVs test identical gains and the cost readings are averaged to reduce measurement noise, and noAVG, in which different gain configurations are tested on different MAVs simultaneously to reduce tuning time. The method is evaluated in Gazebo with 10 repetitions per mode, including a payload variant, and in two real-world outdoor flights, one per mode. The paper claims a reliable, time-deterministic, model-free tuning procedure that improves tuning results while decreasing tuning time.

Significance. If the claims were fully supported, the paper would make a useful practical contribution to UAV controller tuning: a deterministic-time, model-free procedure with open-source code and both simulated and real-world demonstrations. The AVG strategy shows a genuine, if modest, repeatability improvement in the Gazebo tests (kP standard deviation 0.0192 versus 0.0508 in the noAVG mode), which is a measurable positive result. The noAVG idea is also appealing in principle. However, the evidence for the headline 'decreasing tuning time' claim and for the reliability of the noAVG mode is currently incomplete, as detailed below.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III (EQL update rule, noAVG mode)] The noAVG mode compares cost-function values J_j measured on different MAVs at different gain configurations to decide the EQL interval update (cases 2a and 2b in Section III). This is valid only under the stated assumption of N identical MAVs in statistically identical environments. The paper does not validate this assumption: Fig. 2 shows a very flat cost surface, the Gazebo noAVG results have non-negligible dispersion (kP = 0.8656 ± 0.0508, kD = 0.3094 ± 0.1225), and the real-world runs place the MAVs far apart (Fig. 5) with one run per mode. A small systematic platform or wind bias can therefore flip the J comparisons that drive the update, so the time-reduction mode is exactly the mode most exposed to bias. This issue is load-bearing because the AVG mode is explicitly said to offer no reduction in tuning time.
  2. [Section IV (experimental results)] The central claim of decreased tuning time is not quantified against any sequential or single-MAV baseline. The paper reports a 560 s experiment for the parallel procedure, but no wall-clock or per-iteration comparison with sequential EQL tuning under comparable conditions is provided. The near-40% figure in Section III refers to reusing a previously evaluated point within one EQL bootstrap, not to a measured speedup of the parallel swarm procedure. Without a baseline, the abstract's 'decreasing the tuning time' claim is not supported by the presented data.
  3. [Section IV (Figs. 2, 6, 7)] The evaluation of 'improving the results' uses the same altitude-tracking cost function that the tuning procedure optimizes, and no independent validation is provided on a different trajectory, metric, or set of conditions. This matters because the cost surface in Fig. 2 is described as 'extremely flat', so gains differing by the reported dispersions may be statistically indistinguishable in terms of the tuning objective. The paper would need either a comparison against the known grid optimum in Fig. 2, a different validation metric, or a statistical significance test to substantiate the improvement claim.
  4. [Section IV (real-world evaluation)] The real-world evidence consists of two single runs, one per mode, with no repetitions, error bars, or significance tests. Given that the paper claims a 'reliable tuning mechanism', the real-world portion alone cannot support that claim. This is particularly relevant because the two modes are not directly comparable in wall-clock time: Fig. 6 spans 0–600 s while Fig. 7 begins at 250 s, and no total duration or stopping criterion is stated for either run.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads '2 MAV models in the simulation (left)' in both clause positions; one instance should likely refer to the right panel.
  2. [Section III (bootstrap step)] The step 'put k_D^{(k+1)} = k_D^{(k)}' appears self-referential; it presumably intends to fix one parameter while optimizing the other, but the notation should be clarified.
  3. [Section III (state machine)] The state-machine description is given for N=2 only, although the method is claimed to scale to arbitrary even N; a brief description of how the synchronization and optimization steps generalize would improve clarity.
  4. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and formatting issues, including the dangling '+' at the end of Eq. (2), irregular equation numbering, and awkward phrasing in the introduction; a careful proofread is recommended.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the parallel-tuning claim rests on described EQL interval updates and measured experiments, not on a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The paper makes no derivation that reduces to its own inputs. The EQL interval-reduction procedure is stated in full in Section III (cost evaluations at two intermediate gain configurations, range update by comparison of J values), so the method does not depend on an unstated self-citation. The AVG and without-AVG distribution strategies are defined operationally and evaluated with Gazebo simulations and outdoor flights; the reported gains are outputs of the stated procedure, not parameters fitted to the reported outcome. The central claim of improved tuning and decreased tuning time is supported by the algorithmic reuse of one intermediate cost value ('after the first iteration, one of the pair of the intermediate points has already been considered... reduce the time of calculations by almost 40%') and by the experimental repeatability statistics, not by a quantity that is equal to its own definition. That final gains are assessed with the same altitude-tracking cost function used during tuning is a standard property of controller-tuning studies and does not constitute a circular prediction; the paper does not claim to validate the gains on an independent task. Self-citations to prior tuning work ([1]-[3]) are not load-bearing because the required EQL steps and state machine are described within the manuscript, and the cited works are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the derivation. Therefore no circular step meeting the evidence standard is present, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity (score 0).

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the reliability of the EQL interval search (borrowed from the authors' prior work) and on the comparability of the MAVs in the swarm. The only free parameters are user-chosen algorithm settings; no new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • epsilon (interval tolerance) = 0.125
    Stopping tolerance for the EQL interval reduction in (5); chosen by the authors, no sensitivity analysis is provided.
  • initial kD = 0.2
    Starting derivative gain for the bootstrapping procedure; user-chosen, it can affect the path of coordinate descent.
  • number of bootstraps = 2
    Stopping rule for alternating optimization of kP and kD; no justification that two bootstraps suffice for convergence.
  • primitive and transient durations = 8 s + 1 s
    Timing of each cost evaluation and settling period; directly sets the total tuning time (560 s in simulation) and is chosen without analysis.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The cost function is unimodal over the tuned gain interval.
    The EQL interval-elimination method, taken from [2], is valid for unimodal costs; the paper calls the surface 'extremely flat' but does not establish unimodality.
  • domain assumption The N MAVs are identical and their cost readings for the same gains differ only by measurement noise.
    Section III states 'The method allows an even number of N identical MAVs to be tuned at a time'; the AVG mode depends on this for unbiased averaging.
  • domain assumption The cost landscape is stationary during each tuning run.
    The procedure assumes wind and other disturbances do not change the relative cost ranking during the experiment; no stationarity test is reported.
  • domain assumption Coordinate descent over kP and kD converges to the global optimum.
    The bootstrapping procedure optimizes one gain at a time; convergence is assumed from prior work and not re-proven in the multi-MAV setting.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On rapid parallel tuning of controllers of a swarm of MAVs -- distribution strategies of the updated gains." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQGENTSL

@misc{pith2026250507523,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On rapid parallel tuning of controllers of a swarm of MAVs -- distribution strategies of the updated gains},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQGENTSL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07523}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we present a reliable, scalable, time deterministic, model-free procedure to tune swarms of Micro Aerial Vehicles (MAVs) using basic sensory data. Two approaches to taking advantage of parallel tuning are presented. First, the tuning with averaging of the results on the basis of performance indices reported from the swarm with identical gains to decrease the negative effect of the noise in the measurements. Second, the tuning with parallel testing of varying set of gains across the swarm to reduce the tuning time. The presented methods were evaluated both in simulation and real-world experiments. The achieved results show the ability of the proposed approach to improve the results of the tuning while decreasing the tuning time, ensuring at the same time a reliable tuning mechanism.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07523 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Hardware platforms (a pair of MAVs) Special attention is paid in the paper to the altitude control loop, which receives a feedback signal from an embedded stabilizer and the error signal calculated on the basis of the desired attitude RD and thrust TD. The other loop is formed by a nonlinear SO(3) state feedback controller, which receives: desired position rD as a command, and also speed r˙ D, and acceleration r¨D i… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Gazebo simulation (RVIZ) presenting circular trajectory with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Surface of logarithm of the sum of absolute tracking errors in Z averaged over 20 experiments, with a payload Each reference primitive had 8 s, with additional 1 s to decay the transient after the gains have been published, giving overall 14 cost function evaluations per single parameter in a single bootstrap, and for 2 bootstraps with 2 parameters, one gets 56 iterations, leading to a 560 s-long experiment (roughly… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Circular reference trajectories 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 1 2 3 4 Tracking performance Z reference (M) Z real (M) Z reference (S) Z real (S) START TERMINATE 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 time [s] 0 0.5 1 Tuned gains kP kD 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 0 0.5 1 1.5 Performance i…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Tuning procedure data for the case with AVG ((S) lowered in the Figure by 1 m), tracking performance in [m] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Tuning procedure data for the case without AVG ((S) artificially lowered in the Figure by 1 m ), tracking performance axis in [m] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

22 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Giernacki, D

    W. Giernacki, D. Horla, T. Baca, M. Saska,Real-Time Model-Free Minimum-Seeking Autotuning Method for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Controllers Based on Fibonacci-Search Algorithm, Sensors, 2019, V ol. 19(2), pp. 312-1-312-30

    work page 2019

  2. [2]

    Horla, W

    D. Horla, W. Giernacki, T. Baca, V . Spurny and M. Saska,AL-TUNE: A Family of Methods to Effectively Tune UAV Controllers in In-flight Conditions, Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, 2021, V ol. 103(5), pp. 1–16

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    Horla, M

    D. Horla, M. Hamandi, W. Giernacki, A. Franchi,Optimal Tuning of the Lateral-Dynamics Parameters for Aerial Vehicles with Bounded Lateral Force, IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, 2021, V ol. 6(2), pp. 3949–3955

    work page 2021

  4. [4]

    Y . Zou, Y . Zhu, Y . Li, F.-X. Wu, J. Wang,Parallel computing for genome sequence processing, Briefings in Bioinformatics, V ol. 22(5), 2021, pp. bbab070

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Herein, G

    M. Herein, G. Drotos, T. Haszpra, T. et al,The theory of parallel climate realizations as a new framework for teleconnection analysis, Scientific Reports, V ol. 7, 2017, pp. 44529

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Kofgen, I

    B. Kofgen, I. Gutheil,Parallel Linear algebra, in : J. Grotendorst, S. Blugel, D. Marx (Eds.)m Computational Nanoscience: Do It Yourself!, NIC Series, V ol. 31, 2006, pp. 507-522

    work page 2006

  7. [7]

    Jannotti, K

    J. Jannotti, K. Pamnany,Safe at any speed: fast, safe parallelism in servers, In Proceedings of the Second conference on Hot topics in system dependability (HotDep’06), 2006, USENIX Association, USA, 6

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Bochynek, T

    T. Bochynek, T. James, M. Bernd, M. Burd,Parallel foraging cycles for different resources in leaf-cutting ants: a clue to the mechanisms of rhythmic activity: Parallel foraging cycles in Atta ants, Ecological Entomology, V ol. 42, 2017, pp. 849-852,

    work page 2017

Show all 22 references
  1. [9]

    Peterson, A.P

    A.N. Peterson, A.P. Soto, M.J. McHenry,Pursuit and Evasion Strategies in the Predator–Prey Interactions of Fishes, Integrative and Comparative Biology, V ol. 61(2), 2021, pp. 668–680

    2021

  2. [10]

    Tan, Z.-Y

    Y . Tan, Z.-Y . Zheng,Research Advance in Swarm Robotics, Defence Technology, V ol. 9(1), 2013, pp. 18-39

    2013

  3. [11]

    Alateeq, W

    M. Alateeq, W. Pedrycz,A comparative analysis of bio-inspired opti- mization algorithms for automated test pattern generation in sequential circuits, Applied Soft Computing, V ol. 101, 2021, pp. 106967

    2021

  4. [12]

    Sangyam, P

    T. Sangyam, P. Laohapiengsak, W. Chongcharoen, I. Nilkhamhang,Path tracking of UAV using self-tuning PID controller based on fuzzy logic, Proceedings of SICE Annual Conference, 2010, pp. 1265-1269

    2010

  5. [13]

    Sawyer,Gain-scheduled control of a quadrocopter UAV, M.Sc

    S. Sawyer,Gain-scheduled control of a quadrocopter UAV, M.Sc. thesis, University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, 2015

    2015

  6. [14]

    J. Yang, Z. Cai, Q. Lin, Y . Wang,Self-tuning PID control design for quadrotor UAV based on adaptive pole placement control, Chinese Automation Congress, 2013, Changsha, China, pp. 233–237

    2013

  7. [15]

    Y . Song, S. Naji, E. Kaufmann, A. Loquercio, D. Scaramuzza,Flight- mare: A Flexible Quadrotor Simulator, Proceedings of the 2020 Con- ference on Robot Learning, PMLR 155:1147-1157, 2021

    2020

  8. [16]

    Z. Ning, L. Xie,A survey on multi-agent reinforcement learning and its application, Journal of Automation and Intelligence, V ol. 3(2), pp. 73– 91, 2024

    2024

  9. [17]

    D. Hert, T. Baca, P. Petracek, et al.,MRS Drone: A Modular Platform for Real-World Deployment of Aerial Multi-Robot Systems, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, V ol. 108(64), 2023

    2023

  10. [18]

    D. Hert, et al.,MRS Modular UAV Hardware Platforms for Supporting Research in Real-World Outdoor and Indoor Environments, International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), Dubrovnik, Croa- tia, 2022, pp. 1264–1273

    2022

  11. [19]

    T. Baca, P. Stepan, V . Spurny, D. Hert, R. Penicka, M. Saska, J. Thomas, G. Loianno and V . Kumar,Autonomous Landing on a Moving Vehicle with an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Journal of Field Robotics, 2019, V ol. 36(5), pp. 874–891

    2019

  12. [20]

    T. Lee, M. Leoky, N.H. and McClamroch,Geometric tracking control of a quadrotor UAV on SE(3), Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), IEEE 2010, 49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, Atlanta, 2010, USA, pp. 5420–5425

    2010

  13. [21]

    T. Baca, D. Hert, G. Loianno, M. Saska and V . Kumar,Model Predictive Trajectory Tracking and Collision Avoidance for Reliable Outdoor De- ployment of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, In 2018 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2018, p. 1–8

    2018

  14. [22]

    T. Baca, M. Petrlik, M. Vrba, et al.,The MRS UAV System: Pushing the Frontiers of Reproducible Research, Real-world De- ployment, and Education with Autonomous Unmanned Aerial Vehi- cles, Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, V ol. 102(26), 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/...

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.