Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 85 references

NMPC-based Unified Posture Manipulation and Thrust Vectoring for Agile and Fault-Tolerant Flight of a Morphing Aerial Robot

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read One NMPC formulation, no fault detector, recovers from a dead rotor and turns up to 120 degrees.

desk verdict The M4 NMPC idea is fresh and the simulation setup is substantial, but the paper never explains how the fault-blind controller decides to zero the failed rotor — that gap makes the central fault-tolerance claim unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20326 v1 pith:7TEEECCR submitted 2025-04-29 cs.RO cs.SYeess.SY

Shashwat Pandya This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ROcs.SYeess.SY
keywords nonlinearmodelpredictivecontrolfault-tolerantflightthrustvectoringposturemanipulationmorphingaerialrobotM4morphobotsingle-rotorfailurerecoveryagiletrajectorytracking
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

This thesis argues that a single nonlinear model predictive controller can handle two tasks usually given to separate modules: recovering from a failed rotor and flying agile turns. The vehicle is the M4 morphobot, a quadrotor whose four legs have actuated joints, so the controller can shift the center of mass and tilt the thrust axes instead of only changing rotor speeds. The paper shows in Simscape simulation that the same optimizer, with no fault-detection layer and no controller switching, restores stable flight after rotor 4 loses 33 percent, then 66 percent, and then all of its thrust, and separately executes turns up to 120 degrees at roughly 14.5 meters per second. A reader would care because it suggests that mechanical redundancy in the legs can be converted into both fault tolerance and agility by one optimization loop.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a reduced-order prediction model used inside the NMPC: the body is a six-degree-of-freedom rigid body, each leg is a point mass at the leg end, and the input vector contains thruster forces and joint accelerations, mapped through the configuration-dependent force and moment equations. The controller solves a finite-horizon optimal control problem every 0.1 seconds with a five-step horizon using CasADi and IPOPT, integrating the reduced model with a fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme. The mechanism that supposedly gives fault tolerance is the optimizer's dynamic reallocation: because the joints change where thrust acts, the controller can trade rotor thrust for posture changes, and because the cost is receding-horizon, it replans from measured states as the failure evolves. The agile mode adds a collocation-based reference interpolation so intermediate references are staged from the current state toward the goal within each horizon.

What would settle it

Inspect the commanded thrust of rotor 4 in the simulation logs immediately after each failure event: if it does not go to zero in every successful recovery, the claimed implicit fault accommodation is not what stabilizes the vehicle. A stronger test would run the same NMPC with a plant in which the failed rotor keeps producing its pre-fault thrust, or with the optimizer's prediction model modified to reflect the fault, and compare whether recovery still occurs.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that posture manipulation and thrust vectoring can be unified in one NMPC formulation for the M4. In fault-tolerant mode the optimizer minimizes weighted tracking error subject to the reduced-order dynamics, with thrust bounded between 0 and 30 newtons and joint accelerations bounded, and it never receives any fault information; after rotor 4 fails, the optimizer reallocates thrust to the remaining rotors and moves the leg joints so roll and pitch stabilize. In the sagittal-and-frontal actuated model the robot also eliminates yaw rate after complete rotor loss, unlike the sagittal-only model, which keeps spinning. In agile mode, with the thrust bound widened to 50 newtons and references generated by collocation, the same structure tracks turns of 30, 60, 90, and 120 degrees, reaching peak yaw rates above 200 degrees per second for the sharpest turn while keeping tracking error under about a meter except for transient peaks of 2 to 2.5 meters during the 90- and 120-degree maneuvers.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction model always treats all four thrusters as available actuators, so the entire fault-recovery result rests on the unexamined premise that the optimizer will spontaneously command zero thrust on the dead rotor while still trusting its own model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same NMPC formulation, differing only in weights and thrust bounds, covers both fault recovery and agile tracking, so no mode-switching logic is needed.
  • With both sagittal and frontal joint actuation, the robot can stop yaw rotation after complete loss of a rotor, something the sagittal-only version cannot do.
  • Partial failures such as 33 percent and 66 percent loss of effectiveness are handled transparently as the optimizer replans through the progression of the fault.
  • Thrust vectoring through leg joints extends the agile envelope, allowing 120-degree turns at speeds near 14.5 meters per second with bounded tracking error.
  • The controller can land after a rotor failure by executing a controlled descent while still tracking waypoints.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zero-thrust-on-dead-rotor behavior is robust to model mismatch, the same implicit-redundancy idea could extend to multi-rotor failures and variable payloads, since the controller never names the fault.
  • The collocation reference staging in agile mode suggests a way to fold obstacle-avoidance waypoints directly into the NMPC horizon without a separate planner, though the thesis does not test that.
  • A direct comparison against an NMPC that includes fault estimation or adapted thrust bounds would reveal whether the implicit approach trades performance for simplicity; the thesis does not provide that baseline.
  • Because the rotor moment-thrust coefficient and the aerodynamic damping coefficient are selected rather than identified, the simulation results should be rerun with these parameters perturbed before hardware transfer.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. This thesis (arXiv:2504.20326) presents an NMPC framework for the M4 morphing aerial robot that simultaneously plans joint posture and rotor thrusts from a reduced-order model, and validates it in Simscape against single-rotor loss-of-effectiveness and complete failure, as well as agile turns up to 120 degrees. The central claim is that a single NMPC formulation, without fault detection or switching, implicitly compensates for rotor failure by reallocating thrust and using leg articulation, while the same controller performs aggressive trajectory tracking. The manuscript reports recovery in sagittal-only and sagittal-plus-frontal actuation configurations, with the fully actuated version eliminating yaw drift, and tracking errors under 2.5 m during sharp turns.

Significance. If the central mechanism were established, the paper would offer a useful demonstration that receding-horizon control over a redundant morphing platform can unify agile maneuvering and fault tolerance in a single optimization loop. The Simscape validation is detailed: fixed-step integration, ground contact modeling, progressive loss-of-effectiveness scenarios, multiple failure phases, and quantitative turn-tracking results are all present. The contribution is weakened by an unexplained optimizer behavior in the key fault scenario, an inconsistency in the prediction model's mass term, and the absence of any baseline or ablation; as written, the evidence does not yet separate implicit fault accommodation from robust disturbance rejection or from the mechanical redundancy alone.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3.1, Eq. (3.15), Fig. 4.4] The paper's central fault-tolerance result is not explained by the stated optimization. The ROM in Eq. (3.15) treats all four thrusters as valid control inputs, and the cost in Eq. (3.20) has no fault-specific term; in such a model a positive T4 generally reduces the thrust required from the remaining rotors and lowers the quadratic input cost. Yet Fig. 4.4 shows the NMPC-commanded T4 dropping to zero after failure. The text needs to state the mechanism (for example, a plant-side LoE gate acting on the command, a state-dependent local minimum, or an implicit fault flag) and provide a diagnostic separating commanded from applied thrust. Without this, the observed recovery is equally consistent with the controller simply fighting a disturbance while continuing to command the dead rotor, which is a different and much weaker claim.
  2. [§3.1.1, Eq. (3.15)] The prediction model is inconsistent about the mass used for translation. Eq. (3.12) and the text preceding Eq. (3.15) use mnet = mb + 4ml, but the compact ROM in Eq. (3.15) uses 1/mb. With the Table 4.1 values (mb = 4.4 kg, mnet = 6 kg) this changes the predicted translational acceleration by about 36%. The implementation mass must be identified and the equation corrected, because this model is the one embedded in the NMPC and affects every fault-recovery and agile-tracking result.
  3. [§4, Tables 4.1–4.2, Figs. 4.2–4.13] No baseline or ablation is provided. All reported trajectories use the full unified controller, so the reader cannot tell whether the fault tolerance and agility come from posture manipulation, from thrust vectoring alone, or simply from the over-actuated rotor layout. A comparison against a fixed-posture NMPC or a standard thrust-allocation baseline is needed to support the paper's specific claim that leg articulation is what enables these results.
  4. [§3.2, §3.1.1, Fig. 4.1, Table 4.2] The validation of the reduced-order model is partly circular. The aerodynamic damping coefficient gamma and rotor moment-thrust coefficient k are used both in the Simscape plant (Fig. 3.3, Table 4.2) and in the ROM (Eq. 3.13), so the agreement in Fig. 4.1 only shows that the two models were built consistently, not that the ROM is robust to errors in these coefficients. Please add a sensitivity study or identify gamma and k from plant data with different values to test whether the NMPC's fault recovery and agility depend critically on those fitted parameters.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.3.1, §3.3.2] The equation numbering is disordered: Eq. (3.16) is reused for the ROM dynamics in both subsections and is presented after Eq. (3.22), and the function f_rom is not defined before first use. Please renumber the equations and define all symbols.
  2. [§4.2.1.2] The definition of Loss of Effectiveness as a percentage reduction in thrust relative to the required hover thrust is ambiguous; clarify whether the LoE factor scales the NMPC command in the plant or scales the realized thrust.
  3. [Fig. 4.2] The caption states that failure times are randomized between 3.825 s and 3.925 s and that the controller reacts at 4 s, but no number of trials or method for computing the mean and variance is given; please state the trial count and the distribution used.
  4. [Reproducibility] No code, model files, or data are made available; since the paper is entirely simulation-based, releasing the Simscape model and the NMPC implementation would materially support the claims and would also help readers reproduce the reported T4 behavior.
  5. [Various] Minor typos and formatting issues should be cleaned up, including the misspelling of "thruster" in the Fig. 4.7 caption, the "UA Vs" spacing in the acronym list, and the repeated Eq. (3.16) labels.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Prediction-model validation is partly circular because the same fitted coefficients γ and k are baked into both the reduced-order model and the Simscape plant; the central NMPC fault-tolerance and agility claims remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.1.1 Eq. (3.13); Sec. 3.2 drag/moment modeling; Sec. 4.1; Table 4.2]
    "τd(ωb) =−Dωωb, D ω = diag(γ,γ,γ )> 0 (Eq. 3.13); The rotor moment–thrust coefficient k and the aerodynamic yaw-damping coefficient γ were selected from quantitative analysis on comparably sized aerial platforms (Table 4.2 note); Drag is modeled by extracting the body’s angular velocity and applying damping torques proportional to this velocity ... coefficients defined by a gain factor γ (Sec. 3.2)."

    The same scalar γ and k are inserted into both sides of the validation: the ROM's rotational damping τd and thrust-induced moment use exactly the coefficients that the Simscape plant's External Force/Torque blocks use. Hence the Sec. 4.1 statement that the ROM 'closely tracks' the full-fidelity model is not an independent prediction of those aerodynamic channels; the agreement is wired in by construction. The NMPC's fault-tolerance and agility results still depend on the full multibody plant and are not themselves implied by the shared coefficients, so this is a partial, not total, circularity.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: the central NMPC claim is that one optimization (costs Eq. 3.20/3.23, ROM dynamics Eq. 3.15, constraints Eq. 3.21–3.22) yields both fault recovery and agile turns without fault detection or switching. This claim is tested against a Simscape plant, not derived from the controller's own equations, so it is not circular by construction. The unexplained T4→0 behavior (Fig. 4.4) is a mechanism gap and a correctness risk, not a circular reduction: nothing in the stated cost or constraints forces T4 to zero, and the healthy-rotor model would generally favor using it. The paper's self-citations (e.g., Mandralis et al. [62]) are background context, not load-bearing uniqueness arguments. The one genuine reduction-by-construction is the shared aerodynamic coefficients: γ and k appear identically in the ROM (Eq. 3.13) and in the Simscape plant (Sec. 3.2 and Table 4.2), so the Sec. 4.1 'prediction model closely resembles full fidelity model' validation is partly tautological and does not independently test those fitted parameters. The Simscape model's multibody structure, contact forces, joint limits, and RK4 integration still provide independent content for the central fault-tolerance and agility results, so the overall circularity is partial.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a reduced-order prediction model whose uncertain coefficients (gamma, k) are shared with the validation plant, on several modeling simplifications, and on the assumption that the Simscape model faithfully represents the real robot. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Aerodynamic damping coefficient gamma = 0.275
    Applied as D_omega = diag(gamma,gamma,gamma) for body-frame rotational damping in both the ROM prediction model (Eq. 3.13) and the Simscape plant (Fig. 3.3). Selected from comparable aerial platforms; the paper states it would be refined before hardware deployment (Table 4.2).
  • Rotor moment-thrust coefficient k = 0.055
    Maps rotor thrust to induced moment tau_i = k T_i in the Simscape plant and is part of the controller's assumptions. Taken from comparable platforms rather than system identification on the actual robot (Table 4.2).
  • NMPC cost weights Q_fault, R_fault, Q_agile, R_agile = not reported
    The cost matrices are described as 'tuned' to trade off tracking vs control effort, but no numerical values are given, so the controller configuration is not fully specified (Sec. 3.3).
assumptions (5)
  • standard math Newton-Euler and Euler-Lagrange rigid-body dynamics govern the robot's motion
    Used to derive both the ROM (Eq. 3.7, 3.13) and the Simscape multibody plant. Standard background, but the point-mass simplification is a strong modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Appendages are modeled as point masses and intermediate limb segments have negligible mass/inertia in the ROM
    Explicitly stated in Sec. 3.1.1; this simplification is required to keep the NMPC horizon computationally tractable and may omit dynamics that matter during aggressive maneuvers.
  • ad hoc to paper Aerodynamic drag is proportional to body angular velocity through a scalar coefficient gamma
    Introduced in Eq. 3.8/3.13 with gamma tuned from comparable platforms; no derivation from aerodynamic theory and shared between plant and controller.
  • ad hoc to paper Rotor induced moment is proportional to thrust via coefficient k
    Assumed in the plant to capture thrust-induced moments (Sec. 3.2, Table 4.2).
  • domain assumption The high-fidelity Simscape model is an accurate digital twin of the physical M4
    The thesis states parameters were 'fine-tuned iteratively to reflect physical test data' (Sec. 3.2), but no hardware validation is presented.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NMPC-based Unified Posture Manipulation and Thrust Vectoring for Agile and Fault-Tolerant Flight of a Morphing Aerial Robot." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7TEEECCR

@misc{pith2026250420326,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NMPC-based Unified Posture Manipulation and Thrust Vectoring for Agile and Fault-Tolerant Flight of a Morphing Aerial Robot},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7TEEECCR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20326}
}
read the original abstract

This thesis presents a unified control framework for agile and fault-tolerant flight of the Multi-Modal Mobility Morphobot (M4) in aerial mode. The M4 robot is capable of transitioning between ground and aerial locomotion. The articulated legs enable more dynamic maneuvers than a standard quadrotor platform. A nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) approach is developed to simultaneously plan posture manipulation and thrust vectoring actions, allowing the robot to execute sharp turns and dynamic flight trajectories. The framework integrates an agile and fault-tolerant control logic that enables precise tracking under aggressive maneuvers while compensating for actuator failures, ensuring continued operation without significant performance degradation. Simulation results validate the effectiveness of the proposed method, demonstrating accurate trajectory tracking and robust recovery from faults, contributing to resilient autonomous flight in complex environments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20326 by the authors.

Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1. Various examples of aerial robotic systems.[1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1.2
Figure 1.2. The M4 robot in rover, segway, and aerial configurations [13]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Block diagram of the integrated control and simulation environment, highlighting the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_3_1.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (21 more)
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Figure 3.2: Detailed schematic of leg articulation subsystem: sagittal and frontal joints per limb, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_3_2.png]
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Figure 3.3: Implementation of aerodynamic drag and thrust-induced moment simulation within the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_3_3.png]
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Overview of the control subsystem architecture: The NMPC block processes delayed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p044_3_4.png]
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: Detailed schematic of the ground contact modeling subsystem in Simscape. Contact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p045_3_5.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: illustrates the performance of the NMPC-based prediction model during an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_4.png]
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1: Plot showing simulated states between the NMPC prediction model states and Simscape [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p051_4_1.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the control inputs, including thrust values and sagittal joint angles. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p053_4.png]
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.2. Figure 4.2: Plots showing the center of mass trajectory and Euler angles of the robot during failure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p054_4_2.png]
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.3. Figure 4.3: Plot showing the simulated body linear and angular velocities from the beginning with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_4_3.png]
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.4. Figure 4.4: Plots showing the control inputs (joint angle and thruster values) in the simulation as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p055_4_4.png]
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.5. Figure 4.5: Illustrations of the robot during the flight, showing a stable flight without and with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_4_5.png]
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: Plot showing the center of mass trajectory of the robot during the multiple failure events. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p056_4_6.png]
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.6. Figure 4.6: As the LoE begins, the robot starts spinning about its primary axis, resulting in a gradually [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_4_6.png]
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.7. Figure 4.7: Plot for thrust forces and joint angles for trajectory tracking during multiple loss of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p057_4_7.png]
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.8. Figure 4.8: Plots showing the body orientation and orientation rate of the robot as it subsequently [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p059_4_8.png]
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.9. Figure 4.9: Plots showing the control inputs (joint angles and thruster values) in the simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p060_4_9.png]
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: presents a comprehensive view of the robot’s performance during these ma [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p061_4.png]
Figure 4.10
Figure 4.10. Figure 4.10: Plot showing the center of mass trajectory of the robot during the multiple failure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p062_4_10.png]
Figure 4.11
Figure 4.11. Figure 4.11: Plots showing the center of mass velocity and orientation rate throughout the course of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p063_4_11.png]
Figure 4.12
Figure 4.12. Figure 4.12: Plots showing the control inputs (joint angles and thruster values) in the simulation as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p064_4_12.png]
Figure 4.13
Figure 4.13. Figure 4.13: Position tracking, speed, turning rate, and tracking error during agile flight maneuvers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p066_4_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 69 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    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

  2. [2]

    Nava and D

    G. Nava and D. Pucci, ``Failure detection and fault tolerant control of a jet-powered flying humanoid robot,'' in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2023, pp. 12\,737--12\,743

    2023

  3. [3]

    B. Wang, D. Zhu, L. Han, H. Gao, Z. Gao, and Y. Zhang, ``Adaptive fault-tolerant control of a hybrid canard rotor/wing uav under transition flight subject to actuator faults and model uncertainties,'' IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 4559--4574, 2023

    2023

  4. [4]

    W. Hao, B. Xian, and T. Xie, ``Fault-tolerant position tracking control design for a tilt tri-rotor unmanned aerial vehicle,'' IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 69, pp. 604--612, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:234203563

    2022

  5. [5]

    Y. Su, P. Yu, M. J. Gerber, L. Ruan, and T.-C. Tsao, ``Fault-tolerant control of an overactuated uav platform built on quadcopters and passive hinges,'' IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 602--613, 2024

    2024

  6. [6]

    Ke, K.-Y

    C. Ke, K.-Y. Cai, and Q. Quan, ``Uniform passive fault-tolerant control of a quadcopter with one, two, or three rotor failure,'' Trans. Rob., vol. 39, no. 6, p. 4297–4311, Dec. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1109/TRO.2023.3297048

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    Z. Shen, L. Tan, S. Yu, and Y. Song, ``Fault-tolerant adaptive learning control for quadrotor uavs with the time-varying cog and full-state constraints,'' IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 32, no. 12, pp. 5610--5622, 2021

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Mazare, M

    M. Mazare, M. Taghizadeh, P. Ghaf-Ghanbari, and E. Davoodi, ``Robust fault detection and adaptive fixed-time fault-tolerant control for quadrotor uavs,'' Robotics and Autonomous Systems, vol. 179, p. 104747, 06 2024

    work page 2024

Show all 85 references
  1. [9]

    N. P. Nguyen, N. Xuan Mung, and S. K. Hong, ``Actuator fault detection and fault-tolerant control for hexacopter,'' Sensors, vol. 19, no. 21, 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/19/21/4721

    2019

  2. [10]

    O'Connell, J

    M. O'Connell, J. Cho, M. Anderson, and S.-J. Chung, ``Learning-based minimally-sensed fault-tolerant adaptive flight control,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 5198--5205, 2024

    2024

  3. [11]

    H. Yu, S. Wu, W. He, X. Liang, J. Han, and Y. Fang, ``Fault-tolerant control for multirotor aerial transportation systems with blade damage,'' IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, vol. 71, pp. 12\,718--12\,731, 10 2024

    2024

  4. [12]

    Ahmadi, D

    K. Ahmadi, D. Asadi, A. Merheb, S.-Y. Nabavi-Chashmi, and O. Tutsoy, ``Active fault-tolerant control of quadrotor uavs with nonlinear observer-based sliding mode control validated through hardware in the loop experiments,'' Control Engineering Practice, vol. 137, p. 105557, 20...

    2023

  5. [13]

    Slezak, ``A first step towards autonomous multi-modal navigation onboard the m4 robot - hybrid ugv/uav,'' 2022

    F. Slezak, ``A first step towards autonomous multi-modal navigation onboard the m4 robot - hybrid ugv/uav,'' 2022

    2022

  6. [14]

    Sihite, A

    E. Sihite, A. Kalantari, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Multi-modal mobility morphobot (m4) with appendage repurposing for locomotion plasticity enhancement,'' Nature communications, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 3323, 2023

    2023

  7. [15]

    Sihite, F

    E. Sihite, F. Slezak, I. Mandralis, A. Salagame, M. Ramezani, A. Kalantari, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Demonstrating autonomous 3d path planning on a novel scalable ugv-uav morphing robot,'' in 2023 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS)....

    2023

  8. [16]

    Sihite, B

    E. Sihite, B. Mottis, P. Ghanem, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Efficient path planning and tracking for multi-modal legged-aerial locomotion using integrated probabilistic road maps (prm) and reference governors (rg),'' in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC...

    2022

  9. [17]

    Gherold, I

    V. Gherold, I. Mandralis, E. Sihite, A. Salagame, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Self-supervised cost of transport estimation for multimodal path planning.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.06101

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mottis, ``Epfl master thesis: Efficient path planning of m4, mars multi-modal morphofunctional rover,'' 2022

    B. Mottis, ``Epfl master thesis: Efficient path planning of m4, mars multi-modal morphofunctional rover,'' 2022

    2022

  11. [19]

    Ramezani, E

    A. Ramezani, E. Sihite, S. Devey, and M. Gharib, ``Efficient and endured aerial mobility on mars using novel morphing micro aerial vehicle designs,'' LPI Contributions, vol. 2655, p. 5051, 2022

    2022

  12. [20]

    Ramezani and K

    A. Ramezani and K. Sreenath, ``Thruster-assisted legged mobility for explorations on mars,'' LPI Contributions, vol. 2655, p. 5074, 2022

    2022

  13. [21]

    Ramezani and M

    A. Ramezani and M. Gharib, ``Multi-modal mobility unmanned vehicle,'' May 18 2023, uS Patent App. 18/055,757

    2023

  14. [22]

    Ramezani, ``Morpho-functional robots with legged and aerial modes of locomotion,'' Jan

    A. Ramezani, ``Morpho-functional robots with legged and aerial modes of locomotion,'' Jan. 5 2023, uS Patent App. 17/777,743

    2023

  15. [23]

    Mandralis, R

    I. Mandralis, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, R. M. Murray, and M. Gharib, ``Atmo: An aerially transforming morphobot for dynamic ground-aerial transition,'' 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.00609

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Ramezani, P

    A. Ramezani, P. Dangol, E. Sihite, A. Lessieur, and P. Kelly, ``Generative design of nu’s husky carbon, a morpho-functional, legged robot,'' in 2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2021, pp. 4040--4046

    2021

  17. [25]

    Salagame, S

    A. Salagame, S. Manjikian, C. Wang, K. V. Krishnamurthy, S. Pitroda, B. Gupta, T. Jacob, B. Mottis, E. Sihite, M. Ramezani et al., ``A letter on progress made on husky carbon: A legged-aerial, multi-modal platform,'' arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.12254, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Salagame, M

    A. Salagame, M. Gianello, C. Wang, K. Venkatesh, S. Pitroda, R. Rajput, E. Sihite, M. Leeser, and A. Ramezani, ``Quadrupedal locomotion control on inclined surfaces using collocation method,'' in 2024 American Control Conference (ACC). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2024, pp...

    2024

  19. [27]

    K. V. Krishnamurthy, C. Wang, S. Pitroda, A. Salagame, E. Sihite, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Thruster-assisted incline walking.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13118

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    K. V. Krishnamurthy, C. Wang, S. Pitroda, E. Sihite, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Optimization free control and ground force estimation with momentum observer for a multimodal legged aerial robot.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11216

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    K. V. Krishnamurthy, E. Sihite, C. Wang, S. Pitroda, A. Salagame, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Enabling steep slope walking on husky using reduced order modeling and quadratic programming.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.11788

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    K. V. Krishnamurthy, C. Wang, S. Pitroda, A. Salagame, E. Sihite, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Narrow-path, dynamic walking using integrated posture manipulation and thrust vectoring,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM...

    2024

  23. [31]

    Sihite, P

    E. Sihite, P. Dangol, and A. Ramezani, ``Optimization-free ground contact force constraint satisfaction in quadrupedal locomotion,'' in 2021 60th IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021, pp. 713--719

    2021

  24. [32]

    Sihite, B

    E. Sihite, B. Mottis, P. Ghanem, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Efficient path planning and tracking for multi-modal legged-aerial locomotion using integrated probabilistic road maps (prm) and reference governors (rg),'' in 2022 IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC...

    2022

  25. [33]

    Dangol, E

    P. Dangol, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``Control of thruster-assisted, bipedal legged locomotion of the harpy robot,'' Frontiers in Robotics and AI, vol. 8, p. 770514, 2021

    2021

  26. [34]

    Sihite, S

    E. Sihite, S. Pitroda, T. Liu, C. Wang, K. V. Krishnamurthy, A. Salagame, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Posture manipulation of thruster-enhanced bipedal robot performing dynamic wall-jumping using model predictive control,'' in 2024 IEEE-RAS 23rd International Conf...

    2024

  27. [35]

    Pitroda, A

    S. Pitroda, A. Bondada, K. Venkatesh, A. Salagame, C. Wang, T. Liu, B. Gupta, E. Sihite, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Capture point control in thruster-assisted bipedal locomotion,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics ( AIM )...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Dangol, A

    P. Dangol, A. Lessieur, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``A hzd-based framework for the real-time, optimization-free enforcement of gait feasibility constraints,'' in 2020 IEEE-RAS 20th International Conference on Humanoid Robots (Humanoids). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2021,...

    2020

  29. [37]

    Pitroda, E

    S. Pitroda, E. Sihite, T. Liu, K. V. Krishnamurthy, C. Wang, A. Salagame, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Conjugate momentum based thruster force estimate in dynamic multimodal robot.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.14596

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Pitroda, E

    S. Pitroda, E. Sihite, T. Liu, K. Venkatesh Krishnamurthy, C. Wang, A. Salagame, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Enhanced capture point control using thruster dynamics and QP -based optimization for harpy.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.17727

    arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pitroda, E

    S. Pitroda, E. Sihite, K. V. Krishnamurthy, C. Wang, A. Salagame, R. Nemovi, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Quadratic programming optimization for bio-inspired thruster-assisted bipedal locomotion on inclined slopes.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12968

    arXiv

  32. [40]

    Dangol and A

    P. Dangol and A. Ramezani, ``Towards thruster-assisted bipedal locomotion for enhanced efficiency and robustness,'' IFACPapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, p. 10019, 2020

    2020

  33. [41]

    Wang, ``Leggedwalking on inclined surfaces,'' 2023

    C. Wang, ``Leggedwalking on inclined surfaces,'' 2023

    2023

  34. [42]

    Gefen and D

    E. Gefen and D. Zarrouk, ``Flying STAR2 , a Hybrid Flying Driving Robot With a Clutch Mechanism and Energy Optimization Algorithm ,'' IEEE Access, vol. 10, pp. 115\,491--115\,502, 2022, conference Name: IEEE Access. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9933429

    2022

  35. [43]

    Sharif, H

    A. Sharif, H. M. Lahiru, S. Herath, and H. Roth, ``Energy efficient path planning of hybrid fly-drive robot ( HyFDR ) using a* algorithm:,'' in Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Informatics in Control, Automation and Robotics, 2018, pp. 201--210. [Online]. Av...

    2018 doi

  36. [44]

    de Viragh, M

    Y. de Viragh, M. Bjelonic, C. D. Bellicoso, F. Jenelten, and M. Hutter, ``Trajectory optimization for wheeled-legged quadrupedal robots using linearized zmp constraints,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1633--1640, 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    S. C. Wells, P. Zhang, H. Kolvenbach, L. Wellhausen, N. Rudin, and M. Hutter, ``Optimal global path planning for multimodel locomotion on lunar terrain,'' 2022-06-01, 16th Symposium on Advanced Space Technologies in Robotics and Automation (ASTRA 2022); Conference Location: No...

    2022

  38. [46]

    M. Zhao, K. Okada, and M. Inaba, `` en Versatile articulated aerial robot DRAGON : Aerial manipulation and grasping by vectorable thrust control ,'' en The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 42, no. 4-5, pp. 214--248, Apr. 2023, publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd ...

    2023 doi

  39. [47]

    M. Zhao, T. Anzai, and T. Nishio, ``Design, Modeling and Control of a Quadruped Robot SPIDAR : Spherically Vectorable and Distributed Rotors Assisted Air - Ground Amphibious Quadruped Robot ,'' Jan. 2023, arXiv:2301.04050 [cs]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.04050

    2023 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Salagame, E

    A. Salagame, E. Sihite, G. Schirner, and A. Ramezani, ``Dynamic posture manipulation during tumbling for closed-loop heading angle control,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics ( AIM ) , pp. 64--69, ISSN : 2159-6255. [Online]. Available:...

    2024

  41. [49]

    Salagame, E

    A. Salagame, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``Validation of tumbling robot dynamics with posture manipulation for closed-loop heading angle control.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12970

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Salagame, K

    A. Salagame, K. Gangaraju, H. K. Nallaguntla, B. Gupta, E. Sihite, G. Schirner, and A. Ramezani, ``Non-impulsive contact-implicit motion planning for morpho-functional loco-manipulation,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics ( AIM ) , pp....

    2024

  43. [51]

    Jiang, A

    S. Jiang, A. Salagame, A. Ramezani, and L. Wong, ``Hierarchical RL -guided large-scale navigation of a snake robot.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2312.03223

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Jiang, A

    S. Jiang, A. Salagame, A. Ramezani, and L. L. S. Wong, ``Snake robot with tactile perception navigates on large-scale challenging terrain,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ( ICRA ) , pp. 5090--5096. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee...

    2024

  45. [53]

    Salagame, H

    A. Salagame, H. K. Nallaguntla, E. Sihite, G. Schirner, and A. Ramezani, ``Reinforcement learning-based model matching to reduce the sim-real gap in COBRA .'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13700

    arXiv

  46. [54]

    Salagame, K

    A. Salagame, K. Gangaraju, E. Sihite, G. Schirner, and A. Ramezani, ``Heading control for obstacle avoidance using dynamic posture manipulation during tumbling locomotion,'' in 2024 IEEE / RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems ( IROS ) , pp. 13\,555--1...

    2024

  47. [55]

    R. Ji, J. Ma, and S. Sam Ge, ``Modeling and control of a tilting quadcopter,'' IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 2823--2834, 2020

    2020

  48. [56]

    M. K. Mohamed and A. Lanzon, ``Design and control of novel tri-rotor uav,'' in Proceedings of 2012 UKACC International Conference on Control, 2012, pp. 304--309

    2012

  49. [57]

    Nemati, R

    A. Nemati, R. Kumar, and M. Kumar, ``Stabilizing and control of tilting-rotor quadcopter in case of a propeller failure,'' 10 2016, p. V001T05A005

    2016

  50. [58]

    Gupta, Y

    B. Gupta, Y. Shah, T. Liu, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``Banking turn of high-dof dynamic morphing wing flight by shifting structure response using optimization,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics (AIM), 2024, pp. 94--99

    2024

  51. [59]

    Gupta, A

    B. Gupta, A. Dhole, A. Salagame, X. Niu, Y. Xu, K. Venkatesh, P. Ghanem, I. Mandralis, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``Bounding flight control of dynamic morphing wings,'' in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Mechatronics ( AIM ) , pp. 100--105, ISSN : 2...

    2024

  52. [60]

    Dhole, B

    A. Dhole, B. Gupta, A. Salagame, X. Niu, Y. Xu, K. Venkatesh, P. Ghanem, I. Mandralis, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``Hovering control of flapping wings in tandem with multi-rotors,'' in 2023 IEEE / RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems ( IROS ) , pp. 6...

    2023

  53. [61]

    Gupta, E

    B. Gupta, E. Sihite, and A. Ramezani, ``Modeling and controls of fluid-structure interactions ( FSI ) in dynamic morphing flight.'' [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2406.13039

    arXiv

  54. [62]

    Mandralis, E

    I. Mandralis, E. Sihite, A. Ramezani, and M. Gharib, ``Minimum time trajectory generation for bounding flight: Combining posture control and thrust vectoring,'' in 2023 European Control Conference (ECC). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2023, pp. 1--7

    2023

  55. [63]

    Mallavalli and A

    S. Mallavalli and A. Fekih, ``A fault tolerant control design for actuator fault mitigation in quadrotor uavs,'' in 2019 American Control Conference (ACC), 2019, pp. 5111--5116

    2019

  56. [64]

    M. Ryll, H. Bülthoff, and P. Giordano, ``Modeling and control of a quadrotor uav with tilting propellers,'' 05 2012, pp. 4606--4613

    2012

  57. [65]

    Ghalamchi and M

    B. Ghalamchi and M. Mueller, ``Vibration-based propeller fault diagnosis for multicopters,'' in 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2018, pp. 1041--1047

    2018

  58. [66]

    Pourpanah, B

    F. Pourpanah, B. Zhang, R. Ma, and Q. Hao, ``Anomaly detection and condition monitoring of uav motors and propellers,'' in 2018 IEEE SENSORS. 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2018, pp. 1--4

    2018

  59. [67]

    R. P. Palanisamy, C. S. Kulkarni, M. Corbetta, and P. Banerjee, ``Fault detection and performance monitoring of propellers in electric uav,'' in 2022 IEEE Aerospace Conference (AERO). 1em plus 0.5em minus 0.4em IEEE, 2022, pp. 1--6

    2022

  60. [68]

    M. W. Mueller and R. D'Andrea, ``Stability and control of a quadrocopter despite the complete loss of one, two, or three propellers,'' in 2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014, pp. 45--52

    2014

  61. [69]

    J. Mao, J. Yeom, S. Nair, and G. Loianno, ``From propeller damage estimation and adaptation to fault tolerant control: Enhancing quadrotor resilience,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 4297--4304, may 2024. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee....

    2024

  62. [70]

    S. Sun, G. Cioffi, C. de Visser, and D. Scaramuzza, ``Autonomous quadrotor flight despite rotor failure with onboard vision sensors: Frames vs. events,'' IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, pp. 580--587, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corp...

    2021

  63. [71]

    X. Liu, Z. Yuan, Z. Gao, and W. Zhang, ``Reinforcement learning-based fault-tolerant control for quadrotor uavs under actuator fault,'' IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 20, pp. 13\,926--13\,935, 2024. [Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/Corpus...

    2024

  64. [72]

    Liang, Z

    W. Liang, Z. Chen, and B. Yao, ``High-accuracy adaptive robust fault-tolerant control for quadrotor with actuator uncertainties and aerodynamic drag compensation,'' IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. PP, pp. 1--14, 01 2024

    2024

  65. [73]

    W. Yu, N. Yang, Z. Wang, H. C. Li, A. Zhang, C. Mu, and S. H. Pun, ``Fault-tolerant attitude tracking control driven by spiking nns for unmanned aerial vehicles,'' IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 3773--3785, 2025

    2025

  66. [74]

    Abbaspour, K

    A. Abbaspour, K. Yen, P. Forouzannezhad, and A. Sargolzaei, ``A neural adaptive approach for active fault-tolerant control design in uav,'' IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, vol. PP, pp. 1--11, 07 2018

    2018

  67. [75]

    Q. Miao, K. Zhang, and B. Jiang, ``Fixed-time collision-free fault-tolerant formation control of multi-uavs under actuator faults,'' IEEE transactions on cybernetics, vol. PP, 01 2024

    2024

  68. [76]

    Sohege, M

    Y. Sohege, M. Quinones-Grueiro, and G. Provan, ``A novel hybrid approach for fault-tolerant control of uavs based on robust reinforcement learning,'' 05 2021, pp. 10\,719--10\,725

    2021

  69. [77]

    Sababha, H

    B. Sababha, H. Alzubi, and O. Rawashdeh, ``A rotor- tilt-free tricopter uav: Design, modelling, and stability control,'' International Journal of Mechatronics and Automation, vol. 5, pp. 107--113, 12 2015

    2015

  70. [78]

    Quade, M

    M. Quade, M. Abel, J. Nathan Kutz, and S. L. Brunton, ``Sparse identification of nonlinear dynamics for rapid model recovery,'' Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 28, no. 6, p. 063116, 06 2018. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5027470

    2018 doi

  71. [79]

    Z. Yu, Y. Zhang, B. Jiang, C.-Y. Su, J. Fu, Y. Jin, and T. Chai, ``Fractional-order adaptive fault-tolerant synchronization tracking control of networked fixed-wing uavs against actuator-sensor faults via intelligent learning mechanism,'' IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks a...

    2021

  72. [80]

    H. Gao, W. He, Y. Zhang, and C. Sun, ``Adaptive finite-time fault-tolerant control for uncertain flexible flapping wings based on rigid finite element method,'' IEEE Transactions on Cybernetics, vol. 52, no. 9, pp. 9036--9047, 2022

    2022

  73. [81]

    C. Wang, W. Li, and M. Liang, ``Event-triggered prescribed performance adaptive fuzzy fault-tolerant control for quadrotor uav with actuator saturation and failures,'' IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems, vol. PP, pp. 1--18, 01 2024

    2024

  74. [82]

    Eltrabyly, D

    A. Eltrabyly, D. Ichalal, and S. Mammar, ``Fault-tolerant model predictive control trajectory tracking for a quadcopter with 4 faulty actuators,'' IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 54, pp. 141--146, 01 2021

    2021

  75. [83]

    Z. A. Ali, D. Wang, and M. Aamir, ``Fuzzy-based hybrid control algorithm for the stabilization of a tri-rotor uav,'' Sensors, vol. 16, no. 5, 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/16/5/652

    2016

  76. [84]

    Nemati and M

    A. Nemati and M. Kumar, ``Modeling and control of a single axis tilting quadcopter,'' in 2014 American Control Conference, 2014, pp. 3077--3082

    2014

  77. [85]

    Yoo, H.-D

    D.-W. Yoo, H.-D. Oh, D.-Y. Won, and M.-J. Tahk, ``Dynamic modeling and control system design for tri-rotor uav,'' in 2010 3rd International Symposium on Systems and Control in Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2010, pp. 762--767

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.