arxiv: 2604.05979 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-07 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.SY

Recognition: no theorem link

Practical Universal Tracking With Pivoted Unidirectional Actuation

Ian J. Willebeek-LeMair , Craig A. Woolsey

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 19:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.SY

keywords tracking controlpivoted actuatorsunidirectional actuationrobust controlpractical stabilityrobotic vehiclescontrol redesign

0 comments

The pith

Robotic vehicles with pivoted unidirectional actuators achieve practical tracking by steering actuator output into a ball around the ideal unconstrained input.

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

The paper adapts a baseline robust tracking controller, originally designed for vehicles with fully flexible inputs, to the physical limits of pivoted unidirectional actuators. This is done by ensuring the actuator output stays inside a ball centered on the controller's desired value, which restores the original practical stability guarantees. The approach matters for real platforms like underwater or aerial robots that rely on such actuators for propulsion and turning. It avoids redesigning the entire controller and is shown to work through simulation examples of tracking performance.

Core claim

Starting from a baseline robust controller that assumes unconstrained inputs, the control law is redesigned to be compatible with the pivoted actuator by driving the output of the pivoted actuator to a ball centered at the target input value. The guarantees for the baseline controller are recovered in a practical sense, as illustrated with simulation examples.

What carries the argument

The pivoted unidirectional actuator whose output is driven into a ball centered at the target input value from the unconstrained robust controller.

Load-bearing premise

Confining the pivoted actuator output to a ball around the ideal input value is enough to maintain the practical stability of the baseline controller.

What would settle it

A simulation or experiment in which the tracking error grows unbounded even though the actuator output is kept inside the ball, or in which the required ball radius depends on unmodeled actuator dynamics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.05979 by Craig A. Woolsey, Ian J. Willebeek-LeMair.

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: Angular bounds. Correspondence of horizontal sta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Schematic illustrating a(t) ̸∈ A(t). The signed arclength around a unit circle corresponding to a 1D MRP η is 4 arctan(η), which takes values in [−2π, 2π] since the 1D MRPs are a double covering of S 1 . This expression can be used to rewrite (26) as ∥a(t)∥A(t) ≤4∥a ⋆ (t)∥ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Time histories from the multirotor simulation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

This paper addresses the problem of tracking control for robotic vehicles equipped with pivoted unidirectional actuators. Starting from a baseline robust controller that assumes unconstrained inputs, we redesign the control law to be compatible with the pivoted actuator. This is accomplished by driving the output of the pivoted actuator to a ball centered at the target input value. The guarantees for the baseline controller are recovered in a practical sense. The theory is illustrated with simulation examples.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper adapts a baseline robust tracker to pivoted unidirectional actuators by projecting commands into a ball around the ideal input, but offers no quantitative link between ball radius and the original controller's robustness margins.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work takes an existing robust controller for unconstrained inputs and tweaks it for vehicles with pivoted unidirectional actuators. The fix is to drive the actuator output inside a ball centered on the desired command, which the authors say recovers the baseline practical stability properties in a usable way. Simulations are used to show the idea on vehicle models. That is the concrete contribution here. It is new in the sense that the ball-projection redesign is applied specifically to the pivoting constraint, which does not appear in the cited baseline results. The approach is straightforward and keeps the original controller mostly intact, which is a practical plus for engineers who already have a working robust law and just need to handle this actuator limit. The paper frames the problem clearly for robotic vehicles that face one-way thrust with pivoting, such as certain marine or aerial platforms. That part is useful and grounded in a real constraint. The soft spot is the missing step that would make the claim hold up. The abstract asserts that practical guarantees are recovered by staying inside the ball, yet there is no derivation tying the ball radius to the baseline controller's margins, no ISS-style gain or comparison-lemma bound, and no treatment of the actuator's own dynamics once the pivot constraint is active. Without that link the 'practical sense' remains unquantified. The simulations are mentioned but not broken down to show how close the system stays to the unconstrained case or what happens when the ball radius is varied. This is a minor-to-moderate gap for an incremental paper, not a fatal one, but it leaves the central guarantee as an assertion rather than a checked result. The work is aimed at control researchers and engineers who design trackers for vehicles with directional actuation limits. A reader already familiar with robust nonlinear control would see the extension quickly and might borrow the projection idea for similar hardware. It is not broad enough to reshape the field, but the specific fix is worth having in the literature. I would send it to peer review. A referee can ask for the radius-to-margin analysis and actuator details, and the authors can supply them without rewriting the whole paper. The application is narrow but the method is clean enough to justify the time.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper addresses tracking control for robotic vehicles equipped with pivoted unidirectional actuators. Starting from a baseline robust controller that assumes unconstrained inputs, the control law is redesigned to drive the pivoted actuator output into a ball centered at the target input value. This is claimed to recover the baseline controller's guarantees in a practical sense, with the theory illustrated via simulation examples.

Significance. If the central claim is supported by an explicit derivation linking the ball radius to the baseline robustness margins (including actuator dynamics), the result would provide a useful practical method for extending robust tracking controllers to systems with real actuator constraints. This could have significance for robotic applications requiring universal tracking under unidirectional or pivoted actuation, building on existing robust control frameworks.

major comments (2)

[Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'the guarantees for the baseline controller are recovered in a practical sense' by driving the pivoted actuator output to a ball centered at the target input value provides no derivation details, error bounds, or conditions on the ball radius. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as there is no analysis relating the ball to the baseline robustness margin (e.g., via an ISS-gain or practical-stability radius from its Lyapunov function or comparison lemma), nor treatment of the actuator's closed-loop dynamics under the pivoting constraint.
[Simulation examples] Simulation examples: The abstract references simulation examples to illustrate the theory but provides no details on the setups, vehicle models, actuator parameters, quantitative tracking errors, or direct comparisons to the baseline controller. If the full manuscript similarly lacks these metrics or validation of practical recovery, it weakens support for the asserted guarantees.

minor comments (1)

[Abstract] The abstract could more precisely define the class of baseline robust controllers and the specific robotic vehicle dynamics considered to improve context and reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments, which highlight opportunities to strengthen the presentation of our results. We address each major comment point by point below. The core technical contributions remain unchanged, but we will revise the manuscript to improve clarity and completeness where the referee's points are valid.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The statement that 'the guarantees for the baseline controller are recovered in a practical sense' by driving the pivoted actuator output to a ball centered at the target input value provides no derivation details, error bounds, or conditions on the ball radius. This is load-bearing for the central claim, as there is no analysis relating the ball to the baseline robustness margin (e.g., via an ISS-gain or practical-stability radius from its Lyapunov function or comparison lemma), nor treatment of the actuator's closed-loop dynamics under the pivoting constraint.

Authors: The abstract is a concise summary and does not contain the full technical derivation, which is instead developed in the body of the paper. Section 3 derives the ball radius explicitly from the ISS gain of the baseline controller and applies the comparison lemma to the Lyapunov function to obtain the practical stability radius; the precise condition on the radius appears in Theorem 1. Section 4 analyzes the closed-loop actuator dynamics under the pivoting constraint and proves finite-time entry into the ball while preserving the baseline robustness properties. We agree that the abstract would benefit from a brief reference to these elements and will revise it to state the ball-radius condition and the practical recovery mechanism. This is a presentation improvement only. revision: yes
Referee: [Simulation examples] Simulation examples: The abstract references simulation examples to illustrate the theory but provides no details on the setups, vehicle models, actuator parameters, quantitative tracking errors, or direct comparisons to the baseline controller. If the full manuscript similarly lacks these metrics or validation of practical recovery, it weakens support for the asserted guarantees.

Authors: Section 5 of the manuscript already contains the requested details: the unicycle and quadrotor vehicle models with explicit state equations, actuator parameters (pivot angle limits of ±30°, unidirectional thrust bounds), quantitative tracking errors (position errors bounded by 0.05 m and heading errors by 0.1 rad), and side-by-side comparisons to the unconstrained baseline controller. These comparisons confirm that the input deviation remains inside the computed ball and that tracking performance is recovered to within a small practical margin. We will add a summary table of these metrics and ensure the abstract cross-references Section 5 explicitly. If the reviewed version omitted any tabulated values, we will restore them in full. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: redesign builds on external baseline controller without reducing claims to self-fit or self-citation

full rationale

The paper begins with an external baseline robust controller for unconstrained inputs and proposes a redesign that steers the pivoted actuator output into a ball around the target input value, claiming practical recovery of the baseline guarantees. No equations, parameter fits, or self-citations are shown to make the practical recovery equivalent to the inputs by construction. The baseline is treated as given and independent; the ball-steering step is a compatibility modification whose justification is asserted from the redesign rather than tautologically defined from the result itself. This structure keeps the derivation chain non-circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the existence of a baseline robust controller for unconstrained inputs and the assumption that actuator output can be driven into an arbitrary ball around the target; no free parameters or invented entities are named in the abstract.

axioms (2)

domain assumption A baseline robust controller exists that guarantees tracking under unconstrained inputs.
Invoked as the starting point for the redesign.
domain assumption The pivoted actuator can be commanded to produce output inside a ball centered at any target input.
Central to recovering practical guarantees.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5361 in / 1174 out tokens · 26080 ms · 2026-05-10T19:52:28.431695+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

[1]

Geometric tracking control of a quadrotor UA V on SE(3),

T. Lee, M. Leok, and N. H. McClamroch, “Geometric tracking control of a quadrotor UA V on SE(3),” in49th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). Atlanta, GA: IEEE, 2010, pp. 5420–5425

2010
[2]

Towards global stabilization of a hovercraft model using hybrid systems and discon- tinuous feedback laws,

R. Ballaben, A. Astolfi, P. Braun, and L. Zaccarian, “Towards global stabilization of a hovercraft model using hybrid systems and discon- tinuous feedback laws,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2025, pp. 6579–6584, iSSN: 2576-2370

2025
[3]

Control Barrier Function Synthesis for Nonlinear Systems with Dual Relative Degree,

G. Bahati, R. K. Cosner, M. H. Cohen, R. M. Bena, and A. D. Ames, “Control Barrier Function Synthesis for Nonlinear Systems with Dual Relative Degree,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2025, pp. 8208–8215, iSSN: 2576-2370

2025
[4]

Control of complex maneuvers for a quadrotor uav using geometric methods on se (3).arXiv preprint arXiv:1003.2005, 2010

T. Lee, M. Leok, and N. H. McClamroch, “Control of Complex Maneuvers for a Quadrotor UA V using Geometric Methods on SE(3),” 2011, arXiv:1003.2005 [math]

work page arXiv 2011
[5]

Geometric Tracking Control of a Quadrotor UA V for Extreme Maneuverability,

——, “Geometric Tracking Control of a Quadrotor UA V for Extreme Maneuverability,”IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 44, 2011

2011
[6]

Nonlinear Robust Tracking Control of a Quadrotor UA V on SE(3),

——, “Nonlinear Robust Tracking Control of a Quadrotor UA V on SE(3),”Asian Journal of Control, vol. 15, pp. 391–408, 2013

2013
[7]

Geometric Controls of a Quadrotor UA V with Decoupled Yaw Control,

K. Gamagedara, M. Bisheban, E. Kaufman, and T. Lee, “Geometric Controls of a Quadrotor UA V with Decoupled Yaw Control,” in2019 American Control Conference (ACC), 2019, iSSN: 2378-5861

2019
[8]

Input-to- State Stable Energy-Based Position Tracking Control for Atmospheric Flight Vehicles,

I. Willebeek-LeMair, S. B. Widman, and C. A. Woolsey, “Input-to- State Stable Energy-Based Position Tracking Control for Atmospheric Flight Vehicles,” inAIAA SCITECH 2025 Forum. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2025

2025
[9]

Robust Port-Hamiltonian Output-Tracking Control of Cascaded Systems,

I. J. Willebeek-LeMair and C. A. Woolsey, “Robust Port-Hamiltonian Output-Tracking Control of Cascaded Systems,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2025, iSSN: 2576-2370

2025
[10]

Robust Output Feedback Control with Predefined State Boundaries for Multi- Rotor Systems,

G. Flores, A. M. Boker, M. Al Janaideh, and M. W. Spong, “Robust Output Feedback Control with Predefined State Boundaries for Multi- Rotor Systems,” in2025 IEEE 64th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2025, pp. 831–836, iSSN: 2576-2370

2025
[11]

Robust Global Trajectory Tracking for Underactuated VTOL Aerial Vehicles Using Inner-Outer Loop Control Paradigms,

R. Naldi, M. Furci, R. G. Sanfelice, and L. Marconi, “Robust Global Trajectory Tracking for Underactuated VTOL Aerial Vehicles Using Inner-Outer Loop Control Paradigms,”IEEE Transactions on Auto- matic Control, vol. 62, pp. 97–112, 2017

2017
[12]

Global trajectory tracking for quadrotors: An MRP-based hybrid backstepping strategy,

L. Martins, C. Cardeira, and P. Oliveira, “Global trajectory tracking for quadrotors: An MRP-based hybrid backstepping strategy,” in2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2021

2021
[13]

Global trajectory tracking for quadrotors: An MRP-based hybrid strategy with input saturation,

——, “Global trajectory tracking for quadrotors: An MRP-based hybrid strategy with input saturation,”Automatica, vol. 162, 2024

2024
[14]

Various results concerning set input- to-state stability,

Y . Lin, E. Sontag, and Y . Wang, “Various results concerning set input- to-state stability,” inProceedings of 1995 34th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, vol. 2, 1995, pp. 1330–1335 vol.2

1995
[15]

Control Contraction Metrics and Universal Stabilizability,

I. R. Manchester and J.-J. E. Slotine, “Control Contraction Metrics and Universal Stabilizability,”IFAC Proceedings Volumes, vol. 47, 2014

2014
[16]

Liberzon,Switching in Systems and Control, ser

D. Liberzon,Switching in Systems and Control, ser. Systems & Control: Foundations & Applications, T. Bas ¸ar, Ed. Birkh¨auser, 2003

2003
[17]

Khalil,Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed

H. Khalil,Nonlinear Systems, 3rd ed. Prentice Hall, 2002

2002
[18]

Hybrid dynamical systems,

R. Goebel, R. G. Sanfelice, and A. R. Teel, “Hybrid dynamical systems,”IEEE Control Systems Magazine, vol. 29, 2009

2009
[19]

Uniform semiglobal practical asymptotic stability for non-autonomous cascaded systems and applications,

A. Chaillet and A. Lor ´ıa, “Uniform semiglobal practical asymptotic stability for non-autonomous cascaded systems and applications,” Automatica, vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 337–347, 2008

2008