Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 87 references

Autonomous Tail-Sitter Flights in Unknown Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims the first fully autonomous tail-sitter UAV: onboard LiDAR, planning, and control let it fly collision-free at up to 15 m/s through unknown, cluttered places.

desk verdict Strong systems paper with honest limitations: real tail-sitter autonomy at 15 m/s and an open-sourced solver, but the 'collision-free' claim is relative to the current map and the simulation metric is mildly inflated by resets. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15003 v2 pith:WK2IJZBI submitted 2024-11-22 cs.RO

Guozheng Lu , Yunfan Ren , Fangcheng Zhu , Haotian Li , Ruize Xue , Yixi Cai , Ximin Lyu , Fu Zhang This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords tail-sitterUAVautonomousnavigationonlinetrajectoryoptimizationdifferentialflatnesssafeflightcorridornonlinearprogrammingLiDAR-inertialodometrymodelpredictivecontrol
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

Tail-sitter aircraft combine the hover capability of a multicopter with the efficiency of fixed-wing flight, but their strongly nonlinear aerodynamics have made fully autonomous high-speed navigation an open problem. This paper reports a complete autonomy stack, from LiDAR-inertial perception through occupancy mapping, safe-corridor planning, and a custom trajectory optimizer, that closes that gap. The central claim is that the resulting tail-sitter can sense, plan, and control collision-free, dynamically feasible trajectories in real time, demonstrated at speeds up to 15 m/s in indoor, underground, and outdoor environments. If true, tail-sitters become practical for autonomous missions that need both vertical takeoff and landing and fast, efficient cruise flight.

What carries the argument

The central object is EFOPT (Efficient Feasibility-assured OPTimization), a custom nonlinear solver built on the $\ell^1$ penalty method and sequential quadratic programming. It minimizes a merit function equal to the objective plus a weighted constraint-violation term, solving each local subproblem with a conjugate-gradient trust-region step, approximating Hessians with a quasi-Newton update, and switching from coarse to fine convergence tolerances as the iterate becomes feasible. The companion machinery is the tail-sitter differential flatness property: position and its derivatives define the full state and actuator input, so dynamics appear as algebraic constraints in Cartesian space. A safe flight corridor, a chain of overlapping convex polyhedra built along an A* guide path, provides the positional constraints that keep planned trajectories inside perceived free space.

What would settle it

Place a large obstacle fully occluded from the LiDAR until the vehicle has already committed to a corridor between 5 Hz replan cycles; a collision, or a forced stop because no feasible trajectory exists, would show the claimed obstacle avoidance is limited to perceived obstacles. In simulation, inject a new obstacle inside a planned safe corridor immediately after a replan at 15 m/s and check whether the following replan still yields a collision-free trajectory.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's core discovery is that real-time tail-sitter trajectory planning becomes tractable when differential flatness is combined with a custom solver, EFOPT. Differential flatness lets every flight state and actuator input be written as algebraic functions of the vehicle's position and its first three derivatives, so planning happens in a low-dimensional flat-output space. The resulting optimization minimizes flight time and snap energy subject to safe-flight-corridor, actuator, and singularity constraints, and EFOPT solves this non-convex problem in roughly 10 to 98 milliseconds. That speed enables 5 Hz replanning while the aircraft flies at up to 15 m/s, which the paper validates with real-world flights and benchmarks against general-purpose nonlinear solvers. The paper claims this is the first fully autonomous tail-sitter navigation in unknown, cluttered environments.

Load-bearing premise

The planner treats unobserved space as empty and only re-checks the world every 0.2 seconds, so an obstacle hidden inside that supposedly empty zone can enter the path before the next replan.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Tail-sitter UAVs can perform the same autonomous obstacle-avoiding missions as multicopters while retaining the range and energy efficiency of fixed-wing flight.
  • The planner treats unobserved space as free and replans at 5 Hz, so collision-freedom holds for obstacles already perceived; anything hidden inside a corridor between replans remains a residual risk.
  • EFOPT's sub-100 millisecond solve times leave margin inside the 200 millisecond replan interval, so the approach can handle more demanding environments or larger planning horizons.
  • The framework depends on differential flatness and identified aerodynamic coefficients, so the same pipeline can be reused on other tail-sitter designs once their aerodynamic models are available.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, EFOPT's feasibility-first design, dense linear algebra, and small-to-medium problem scale suggest it could accelerate online trajectory optimization for other nonlinear robotic platforms, though scaling to very large problems would need sparse techniques.
  • Beyond the paper, a straightforward extension would add a fallback trajectory confined to known-free space, which would give the system a predictable stop or slow-down behavior when the primary optimizer fails.
  • Beyond the paper, the unknown-space-as-free assumption means field performance depends on sensor field of view and obstacle density; a randomized trial with occluded obstacles would give a quantitative safety estimate for the claimed autonomous capability.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents an autonomous tail-sitter UAV system that navigates unknown, cluttered environments at speeds up to 15 m/s using purely onboard sensing and computation. The core technical contribution is a trajectory optimization formulation based on a previously established differential-flatness model of tail-sitter dynamics, together with a new nonlinear programming solver, EFOPT, built on an l1-penalty method with sequential quadratic programming and a Steihaug-CG trust-region solver. The planning pipeline uses A* search, safe flight corridor construction, and receding-horizon trajectory optimization at 5 Hz, with an on-manifold MPC tracking the resulting state-input trajectory. The authors benchmark EFOPT against several off-the-shelf NLP solvers on two-variable, random safe-corridor, and obstacle-dense map problems, and they demonstrate the complete system in an indoor laboratory, an underground parking lot, and an outdoor park. The solver is open-sourced and a video is provided.

Significance. If the system-level claims hold, this is a substantial advance in tail-sitter autonomy: it is, to the best of the authors' knowledge, the first demonstration of fully autonomous, high-speed tail-sitter navigation in unknown and cluttered real-world environments. The paper's strengths include the breadth of real-world flight tests, the open-source release of EFOPT, the detailed system integration of LiDAR-based perception, planning, and control, and the consistently low online computation times (median 10.7-35.6 ms) that make 5 Hz replanning plausible. The differential-flatness-based formulation is a meaningful step beyond the offline or low-dimensional trajectory generation that dominates prior tail-sitter work. However, the headline claims of collision-free flight and dynamic feasibility are stronger than what the current evidence supports, because continuous-time constraint enforcement is not specified, unknown space is treated as free, and the simulation benchmark resets the vehicle after planning failures.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (2d)-(2f)] The manuscript does not specify how the continuous-time constraints (2d)-(2f) are transcribed into the finite-dimensional optimization over Q and T. The constraints involve pi(t) over each interval [0, ti], the state-input bounds through X and U, and the singularity avoidance condition S(x(t)) >= epsilon; none of these holds automatically from the polynomial parameterization. The paper should state whether constraints are enforced at discrete collocation points, on a dense grid, or through a convex-hull/Bernstein-based enclosure, and how many points per segment are used. Without this, the claims of dynamic feasibility and collision avoidance in the optimization cannot be verified, and the benchmark results are not reproducible.
  2. [Sections V and VIII-D] The planner deliberately searches in known-free and unknown space, treating unknown voxels as free, and relies on 5 Hz replanning to detect newly perceived obstacles. Section VIII-D explicitly concedes that hidden obstacles inside safe flight corridors could remain undetected and that, if the trajectory optimization then fails, the reference trajectory may not be updated, potentially leading to collisions. Consequently, the abstract and contribution claims of providing 'collision-free' trajectories in unknown environments are supported only relative to the current occupancy map, not as an absolute safety guarantee. The claim should be scoped accordingly, or the paper should implement and evaluate a known-free-space fallback trajectory (such as the one cited from [66]) before asserting collision-free operation.
  3. [Section VI-C] The simulation benchmark resets the vehicle to the position immediately before a collision whenever the planner fails and the previous trajectory would collide. This means collisions are not counted as failures, which biases the reported success rates and the achieved flight speeds toward optimistic values. The paper should report the number of resets separately, count collisions as failures in the success-rate metric, or present a metric that does not erase collisions. The comparison of EFOPT against other solvers in the obstacle-dense scenario is weakened until this is addressed.
  4. [Section VI and Section VIII-E] The benchmark problems are all formulated with the authors' own piecewise-polynomial parameterization and the differential-flatness model from their prior work [13]. This is appropriate for demonstrating EFOPT's suitability for this planner, but it does not support the broader statement in Section VIII-E that EFOPT is potentially suitable for a wide range of general NLPs. The claim should be confined to the demonstrated problem class, or additional experiments on independent NLP benchmarks should be provided.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section V] The replanning horizon is described as 'set to 30 min this paper', which appears to be a typo for 30 m; please correct this.
  2. [Section VI-C] In the text, 'LBFGS-Lite ( mu = 1e-9 )' is reported, while the earlier benchmark uses mu values of 1e5, 1e7, and 1e9; this is likely a typo for 1e9 and should be corrected.
  3. [Section IV, Algorithm 1] The solver has many hyperparameters (mu0, s0, lambda1, lambda2, tau-, tau+, k, xtol, ftol, ctol) plus the formulation parameters rho and epsilon; a sensitivity study or at least a table of the chosen values with a brief rationale would help readers apply the method to new problems.
  4. [Section VII] The real-world experiments are single demonstrations in each environment; no repeated trials, statistics, or abort/failure cases are reported, so the robustness of the system across runs is not quantified.
  5. [Table I] The fifth row of Table I contains the typo 'EFPOT' instead of 'EFOPT'.
  6. [Section VIII-A] There is a typo in 'lightwight' (should be 'lightweight'); also, the phrase 'the development of lightwight and wide-FoV LiDAR sensors' should be reworded for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on empirical benchmarks, on an externally stated flatness theorem, and on system demonstrations, not on equations that reduce to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The trajectory optimization (Eq. 2) uses a differential-flatness mapping taken from the authors' prior work [13], but that mapping is a separately published theorem with stated assumptions (coordinated flight and a classical aerodynamic model), not a restatement of the present paper's conclusions; its use does not make the later empirical autonomy claims tautological. EFOPT's superiority is supported by benchmark experiments against external solvers (SNOPT, IPOPT, TRAJOPT, KNITRO, NLOPT, LBFGS-Lite) on fixed optimization problems with reported success rates and computation times; those are empirical results rather than fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The planning pipeline's collision-free property is, as the paper itself acknowledges in Section VIII-D, only relative to the current map and can fail for hidden obstacles or optimization failure; that is an explicit limitation, not a circular step. The few self-citations (e.g., [13] for flatness, [81] for MPC, [79] for the occupancy map) are load-bearing engineering references but do not reduce any claimed result to its own input by construction. No equation in the paper is defined in terms of the quantity it purports to predict, and no fitted constant is relabeled as a physical prediction. Therefore the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the prior differential-flatness proof, the wind-tunnel aerodynamic model, and the unknown-space-as-free assumption. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • rho (flight time weight) = 1e4
    Set manually in Section III to pursue fast flight; increases aggressiveness and constraint violations.
  • epsilon (singularity margin) = 0.1
    Set in Section III to avoid the flatness singularity Sp=||dv/dt-g||=0; numerical stability choice.
  • solver hyperparameters (mu0, s0, lambda1, lambda2, tau-, tau+, k, xtol, ftol, ctol) = mu0=1 mentioned; others not all listed in text
    Algorithm 1 parameters that affect success rate and speed; typical tuning for NLP solvers.
  • per-experiment vmax and amax = 8, 12, 10, 15 m/s across the four real flights
    Velocity and acceleration bounds chosen by the user for each scenario; shape the optimized trajectory and support the 'high-speed' claims.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The tail-sitter is differentially flat with position p as the flat output under coordinated flight.
    Invoked in Section III and Appendix B; proof is referenced to the authors' prior work [13] and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption Aerodynamic coefficients from the previous quadrotor tail-sitter prototype [85] apply to the current airframe.
    Appendix A and Fig. 14 use wind-tunnel coefficients for the prior prototype; model mismatch is compensated by MPC but not quantified.
  • domain assumption Sideslip is zero (coordinated flight) for all planned trajectories.
    Enforced by choice of flat output; limitations discussed in Section VIII-C.
  • domain assumption Unknown space is traversable and safe until obstacles are perceived.
    The planner searches and plans through unknown space in Sections V and VIII-D; this is the key safety assumption.
  • standard math A* corridor and SFC generation produce collision-free convex regions with respect to the current occupancy map.
    Standard geometric construction from [51], [80]; assumed correct for the downsampled map.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Autonomous Tail-Sitter Flights in Unknown Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WK2IJZBI

@misc{pith2026241115003,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Autonomous Tail-Sitter Flights in Unknown Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WK2IJZBI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15003}
}
read the original abstract

Trajectory generation for fully autonomous flights of tail-sitter unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) presents substantial challenges due to their highly nonlinear aerodynamics. In this paper, we introduce, to the best of our knowledge, the world's first fully autonomous tail-sitter UAV capable of high-speed navigation in unknown, cluttered environments. The UAV autonomy is enabled by cutting-edge technologies including LiDAR-based sensing, differential-flatness-based trajectory planning and control with purely onboard computation. In particular, we propose an optimization-based tail-sitter trajectory planning framework that generates high-speed, collision-free, and dynamically-feasible trajectories. To efficiently and reliably solve this nonlinear, constrained \textcolor{black}{problem}, we develop an efficient feasibility-assured solver, EFOPT, tailored for the online planning of tail-sitter UAVs. We conduct extensive simulation studies to benchmark EFOPT's superiority in planning tasks against conventional NLP solvers. We also demonstrate exhaustive experiments of aggressive autonomous flights with speeds up to 15m/s in various real-world environments, including indoor laboratories, underground parking lots, and outdoor parks. A video demonstration is available at https://youtu.be/OvqhlB2h3k8, and the EFOPT solver is open-sourced at https://github.com/hku-mars/EFOPT.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15003 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Autonomous tail-sitter UAV equipped with a LiDAR, driven [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Trajectory paramterization. The trajectory (blue curve) consec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. System overview Except for the low-level controller implemented on au￾topilot, all other modules – perception, planning and control modules – run in real time on the onboard computer. VI. BENCHMARK RESULTS In this section, we conduct three simulated trajectory op￾timization to benchmark the performance of our proposed feasibility-assured solver, EFOPT, against off-the-shelf NLP solvers, including TRAJOPT [75], KNITR… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Three benchmark simulations to evaluate the performance of different solvers in trajectory optimization. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Convergence progress in the two-variable optimization for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Success rate and average computation time solvers in hover [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Benchmark results of local replanning in a 3-D environment [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: UAV states and inputs of a trajectory solved by EFOPT in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: LiDAR installation on the tail-sitter and its FoV. The LIVOX [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Autonomous flights in real-world environments. Point-cloud maps are constructed by FAST-LIO2 in real time. Yellow stars (G1- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Flight data of real-world experiments. Shaded regions denote constraint boundaries in the trajectory optimization. Black dashed lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Computation time of trajectory optimization in real-world [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Coordinate systems and aerodynamic nomenclatures. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Longitudinal aerodynamic coefficients CL and CD of our previous quadrotor tail-sitter UAV prototype, identified by wind tunnel tests [85]. APPENDIX A. Flight dynamics The coordinate frames and flight dynamics are defined and presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

87 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [66]

    Faster: Fast and safe trajec- tory planner for flights in unknown environments,

    J. Tordesillas, B. T. Lopez, and J. P. How, “Faster: Fast and safe trajec- tory planner for flights in unknown environments,” in 2019 IEEE/RSJ international conference on intelligent robots and systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2019, pp. 1934–1940

    2019

  2. [13]

    Trajectory generation and tracking control for aggressive tail-sitter flights,

    G. Lu, Y . Cai, N. Chen, F. Kong, Y . Ren, and F. Zhang, “Trajectory generation and tracking control for aggressive tail-sitter flights,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 241– 280, 2024

    2024

  3. [1]

    A hybrid tricopter/flying-wing vtol uav,

    S. Carlson, “A hybrid tricopter/flying-wing vtol uav,” in 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2014, p. 0016

    2014

  4. [2]

    Design of a commercial hybrid vtol uav system,

    U. Ozdemir, Y . O. Aktas, A. Vuruskan, Y . Dereli, A. F. Tarhan, K. Demirbag, A. Erdem, G. D. Kalaycioglu, I. Ozkol, and G. Inalhan, “Design of a commercial hybrid vtol uav system,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems , vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 371–393, 2014

    2014

  5. [3]

    Design and development of a tilt-wing uav,

    E. C ¸ etinsoy, E. Sirimo˘glu, K. T. ¨Oner, C. Hancer, M. ¨Unel, M. F. Aks ¸it, I. Kandemir, and K. G ¨ulez, “Design and development of a tilt-wing uav,” Turkish Journal of Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences , vol. 19, no. 5, pp. 733–741, 2011

    2011

  6. [4]

    One step beyond, rotor wing,

    J. McKenna, “One step beyond, rotor wing,” 2007

    2007

  7. [5]

    Arcturus uav upgrades the jump15 vtol uav,

    R. Park, “Arcturus uav upgrades the jump15 vtol uav,” Airlines & Aviation, Aerospace & Defense , 2014

    2014

  8. [6]

    Development and experimental verification of a hybrid vertical take-off and landing (vtol) unmanned aerial vehicle (uav),

    H. Gu, X. Lyu, Z. Li, S. Shen, and F. Zhang, “Development and experimental verification of a hybrid vertical take-off and landing (vtol) unmanned aerial vehicle (uav),” in 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 160–169

    2017

Show all 87 references
  1. [7]

    Design, control, and visual navigation of the delftacopter vtol tail-sitter uav,

    C. De Wagter, R. Ruijsink, E. J. Smeur, K. G. van Hecke, F. van Tienen, E. van der Horst, and B. D. Remes, “Design, control, and visual navigation of the delftacopter vtol tail-sitter uav,” Journal of Field Robotics, vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 937–960, 2018

    2018

  2. [8]

    A coordinate descent method for multidisciplinary design optimization of electric- powered winged uavs,

    H. Gu, X. Cai, J. Zhou, Z. Li, S. Shen, and F. Zhang, “A coordinate descent method for multidisciplinary design optimization of electric- powered winged uavs,” in 2018 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1189–1198

    2018

  3. [9]

    Global trajectory-tracking control for a tailsitter flying wing in agile uncoordinated flight,

    E. A. Tal and S. Karaman, “Global trajectory-tracking control for a tailsitter flying wing in agile uncoordinated flight,” in AIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUM, 2021, p. 3214

    2021

  4. [10]

    A global controller for flying wing tailsitter vehicles,

    R. Ritz and R. D’Andrea, “A global controller for flying wing tailsitter vehicles,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2017, pp. 2731–2738

    2017

  5. [11]

    Incremental control and guidance of hybrid aircraft applied to a tailsitter unmanned air vehicle,

    E. J. Smeur, M. Bronz, and G. C. de Croon, “Incremental control and guidance of hybrid aircraft applied to a tailsitter unmanned air vehicle,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics , vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 274– 287, 2020

    2020

  6. [12]

    Global incremental flight control for agile maneuvering of a tailsitter flying wing,

    E. Tal and S. Karaman, “Global incremental flight control for agile maneuvering of a tailsitter flying wing,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. 45, no. 12, pp. 2332–2349, 2022

    2022

  7. [14]

    Hover, transition, and level flight control design for a single-propeller indoor airplane,

    A. Frank, J. McGrew, M. Valenti, D. Levine, and J. How, “Hover, transition, and level flight control design for a single-propeller indoor airplane,” in AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, 2007, p. 6318. 18

    2007

  8. [15]

    Development of a quad rotor tail-sitter vtol uav without control surfaces and experimental verification,

    A. Oosedo, S. Abiko, A. Konno, T. Koizumi, T. Furui, and M. Uchiyama, “Development of a quad rotor tail-sitter vtol uav without control surfaces and experimental verification,” in 2013 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation . IEEE, 2013, pp. 317–322

    2013

  9. [16]

    A hierarchical control approach for a quadrotor tail-sitter vtol uav and experimental verification,

    X. Lyu, H. Gu, J. Zhou, Z. Li, S. Shen, and F. Zhang, “A hierarchical control approach for a quadrotor tail-sitter vtol uav and experimental verification,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 5135–5141

    2017

  10. [17]

    Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,

    D. Mellinger and V . Kumar, “Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,” in 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation . IEEE, 2011, pp. 2520–2525

    2011

  11. [18]

    A new nonlinear guidance logic for trajectory tracking,

    S. Park, J. Deyst, and J. How, “A new nonlinear guidance logic for trajectory tracking,” in AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference and exhibit , 2004, p. 4900

    2004

  12. [19]

    Full attitude control of a vtol tailsitter uav,

    S. Verling, B. Weibel, M. Boosfeld, K. Alexis, M. Burri, and R. Siegwart, “Full attitude control of a vtol tailsitter uav,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 3006– 3012

    2016

  13. [20]

    Design and implementation of a quadrotor tail-sitter vtol uav,

    X. Lyu, H. Gu, Y . Wang, Z. Li, S. Shen, and F. Zhang, “Design and implementation of a quadrotor tail-sitter vtol uav,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 3924–3930

    2017

  14. [21]

    Acceleration based iterative learning control for pugachev’s cobra maneuver with quadrotor tailsitter vtol uavs,

    W. Xu, H. Gu, and F. Zhang, “Acceleration based iterative learning control for pugachev’s cobra maneuver with quadrotor tailsitter vtol uavs,” work, vol. 7, p. 12, 2019

    2019

  15. [22]

    Optimal transition maneuvers for a class of v/stol aircraft,

    R. Naldi and L. Marconi, “Optimal transition maneuvers for a class of v/stol aircraft,” Automatica, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 870–879, 2011

    2011

  16. [23]

    Optimal transition from hovering to level-flight of a quadrotor tail-sitter uav,

    A. Oosedo, S. Abiko, A. Konno, and M. Uchiyama, “Optimal transition from hovering to level-flight of a quadrotor tail-sitter uav,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 1143–1159, 2017

    2017

  17. [24]

    Tran- sition optimization for a vtol tail-sitter uav,

    B. Li, J. Sun, W. Zhou, C.-Y . Wen, K. H. Low, and C.-K. Chen, “Tran- sition optimization for a vtol tail-sitter uav,” IEEE/ASME transactions on mechatronics, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 2534–2545, 2020

    2020

  18. [25]

    Transition trajectory planning and control for quadrotor biplanes in obstacle cluttered environments,

    K. McIntosh and S. Mishra, “Transition trajectory planning and control for quadrotor biplanes in obstacle cluttered environments,” in Vertical Flight Society 78th Annual Forum Proceedings , 2022

    2022

  19. [26]

    Px4: A node-based mul- tithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded plat- forms,

    L. Meier, D. Honegger, and M. Pollefeys, “Px4: A node-based mul- tithreaded open source robotics framework for deeply embedded plat- forms,” in 2015 IEEE international conference on robotics and automa- tion (ICRA). IEEE, 2015, pp. 6235–6240

    2015

  20. [27]

    Optimal trajectory generation for transitioning quadrotor biplane tailsitter using differential flatness,

    K. McIntosh, J. Reddinger, D. Zhao, and S. Mishra, “Optimal trajectory generation for transitioning quadrotor biplane tailsitter using differential flatness,” in Vertical Flight Society 77th Annual Forum Proceedings , 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Aerobatic trajectory generation for a vtol fixed-wing aircraft using differential flatness,

    E. Tal, G. Ryou, and S. Karaman, “Aerobatic trajectory generation for a vtol fixed-wing aircraft using differential flatness,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    The phi-theory approach to flight control design of hybrid vehicles,

    L. R. Lustosa, “The phi-theory approach to flight control design of hybrid vehicles,” Ph.D. dissertation, PhD thesis, ISAE-SUPAERO, 2017

    2017

  23. [30]

    Aggressive flight of fixed-wing and quadrotor aircraft in dense indoor environments,

    A. Bry, C. Richter, A. Bachrach, and N. Roy, “Aggressive flight of fixed-wing and quadrotor aircraft in dense indoor environments,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 34, no. 7, pp. 969– 1002, 2015

    2015

  24. [31]

    Funnel libraries for real-time robust feed- back motion planning,

    A. Majumdar and R. Tedrake, “Funnel libraries for real-time robust feed- back motion planning,” The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 947–982, 2017

    2017

  25. [32]

    Differential flatness of quadrotor dynamics subject to rotor drag for accurate tracking of high- speed trajectories,

    M. Faessler, A. Franchi, and D. Scaramuzza, “Differential flatness of quadrotor dynamics subject to rotor drag for accurate tracking of high- speed trajectories,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 620–626, 2017

    2017

  26. [33]

    Aggressive quadrotor flight through narrow gaps with onboard sensing and com- puting using active vision,

    D. Falanga, E. Mueggler, M. Faessler, and D. Scaramuzza, “Aggressive quadrotor flight through narrow gaps with onboard sensing and com- puting using active vision,” in 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 5774–5781

    2017

  27. [34]

    Perching and resting—a paradigm for uav maneuvering with modularized landing gears,

    K. Hang, X. Lyu, H. Song, J. A. Stork, A. M. Dollar, D. Kragic, and F. Zhang, “Perching and resting—a paradigm for uav maneuvering with modularized landing gears,” Science Robotics , vol. 4, no. 28, p. eaau6637, 2019

    2019

  28. [35]

    Energy efficient perching and takeoff of a miniature rotorcraft,

    Y .-H. Hsiao, S. Bai, Y . Zhou, H. Jia, R. Ding, Y . Chen, Z. Wang, and P. Chirarattananon, “Energy efficient perching and takeoff of a miniature rotorcraft,” Communications Engineering, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 38, 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    A computationally ef- ficient motion primitive for quadrocopter trajectory generation,

    M. W. Mueller, M. Hehn, and R. D’Andrea, “A computationally ef- ficient motion primitive for quadrocopter trajectory generation,” IEEE transactions on robotics , vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 1294–1310, 2015

    2015

  30. [37]

    Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,

    E. Kaufmann, L. Bauersfeld, A. Loquercio, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Champion-level drone racing using deep reinforcement learning,” Nature, vol. 620, no. 7976, pp. 982–987, 2023

    2023

  31. [38]

    High speed navigation for quadrotors with limited onboard sensing,

    S. Liu, M. Watterson, S. Tang, and V . Kumar, “High speed navigation for quadrotors with limited onboard sensing,” in 2016 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2016, pp. 1484– 1491

    2016

  32. [39]

    Fuel: Fast uav exploration using incremental frontier structure and hierarchical planning,

    B. Zhou, Y . Zhang, X. Chen, and S. Shen, “Fuel: Fast uav exploration using incremental frontier structure and hierarchical planning,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 779–786, 2021

    2021

  33. [40]

    On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual–inertial odometry,

    C. Forster, L. Carlone, F. Dellaert, and D. Scaramuzza, “On-manifold preintegration for real-time visual–inertial odometry,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2016

    2016

  34. [41]

    Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator,

    T. Qin, P. Li, and S. Shen, “Vins-mono: A robust and versatile monocular visual-inertial state estimator,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 1004–1020, 2018

    2018

  35. [42]

    Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual– inertial, and multimap slam,

    C. Campos, R. Elvira, J. J. G. Rodr ´ıguez, J. M. Montiel, and J. D. Tard´os, “Orb-slam3: An accurate open-source library for visual, visual– inertial, and multimap slam,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 1874–1890, 2021

    2021

  36. [43]

    Ego-planner: An esdf- free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors,

    X. Zhou, Z. Wang, H. Ye, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Ego-planner: An esdf- free gradient-based local planner for quadrotors,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 478–485, 2020

    2020

  37. [44]

    Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,

    B. Zhou, F. Gao, L. Wang, C. Liu, and S. Shen, “Robust and effi- cient quadrotor trajectory generation for fast autonomous flight,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 3529–3536, 2019

    2019

  38. [45]

    Learning high-speed flight in the wild,

    A. Loquercio, E. Kaufmann, R. Ranftl, M. M ¨uller, V . Koltun, and D. Scaramuzza, “Learning high-speed flight in the wild,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 59, p. eabg5810, 2021

    2021

  39. [46]

    Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar- inertial odometry,

    W. Xu, Y . Cai, D. He, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Fast-lio2: Fast direct lidar- inertial odometry,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 2053–2073, 2022

    2022

  40. [47]

    Bubble planner: Planning high-speed smooth quadrotor trajectories using receding corridors,

    Y . Ren, F. Zhu, W. Liu, Z. Wang, Y . Lin, F. Gao, and F. Zhang, “Bubble planner: Planning high-speed smooth quadrotor trajectories using receding corridors,” in 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 6332–6339

    2022

  41. [48]

    Geometrically constrained tra- jectory optimization for multicopters,

    Z. Wang, X. Zhou, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Geometrically constrained tra- jectory optimization for multicopters,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics , 2022

    2022

  42. [49]

    Online whole-body motion planning for quadrotor using multi-resolution search,

    Y . Ren, S. Liang, F. Zhu, G. Lu, and F. Zhang, “Online whole-body motion planning for quadrotor using multi-resolution search,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2023, pp. 1594–1600

    2023

  43. [50]

    A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,

    E. DIJKSTRA, “A note on two problems in connexion with graphs,” Numerische Mathematik, vol. 1, pp. 269–271, 1959

    1959

  44. [51]

    A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,

    P. E. Hart, N. J. Nilsson, and B. Raphael, “A formal basis for the heuristic determination of minimum cost paths,” IEEE transactions on Systems Science and Cybernetics , vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 100–107, 1968

    1968

  45. [52]

    Search-based motion planning for aggressive flight in se (3),

    S. Liu, K. Mohta, N. Atanasov, and V . Kumar, “Search-based motion planning for aggressive flight in se (3),” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 2439–2446, 2018

    2018

  46. [53]

    Falco: Fast likelihood- based collision avoidance with extension to human-guided navigation,

    J. Zhang, C. Hu, R. G. Chadha, and S. Singh, “Falco: Fast likelihood- based collision avoidance with extension to human-guided navigation,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 37, no. 8, pp. 1300–1313, 2020

    2020

  47. [54]

    Prob- abilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,

    L. E. Kavraki, P. Svestka, J.-C. Latombe, and M. H. Overmars, “Prob- abilistic roadmaps for path planning in high-dimensional configuration spaces,” IEEE transactions on Robotics and Automation , vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 566–580, 1996

    1996

  48. [55]

    Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,

    S. LaValle, “Rapidly-exploring random trees: A new tool for path planning,” Research Report 9811 , 1998

    1998

  49. [56]

    Path planning using lazy prm,

    R. Bohlin and L. E. Kavraki, “Path planning using lazy prm,” in Proceedings 2000 ICRA. Millennium conference. IEEE international conference on robotics and automation. Symposia proceedings (Cat. No. 00CH37065), vol. 1. IEEE, 2000, pp. 521–528

    2000

  50. [57]

    Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,

    S. Karaman and E. Frazzoli, “Sampling-based algorithms for optimal motion planning,” The international journal of robotics research, vol. 30, no. 7, pp. 846–894, 2011

    2011

  51. [58]

    Acado toolkit—an open-source framework for automatic control and dynamic optimization,

    B. Houska, H. J. Ferreau, and M. Diehl, “Acado toolkit—an open-source framework for automatic control and dynamic optimization,” Optimal Control Applications and Methods , vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 298–312, 2011

    2011

  52. [59]

    Gpops-ii: A matlab software for solving multiple-phase optimal control problems using hp-adaptive gaussian quadrature collocation methods and sparse nonlinear programming,

    M. A. Patterson and A. V . Rao, “Gpops-ii: A matlab software for solving multiple-phase optimal control problems using hp-adaptive gaussian quadrature collocation methods and sparse nonlinear programming,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) , vol. 41, no. 1, pp. ...

    2014

  53. [60]

    A real-time quadrotor trajectory planning framework based on b-spline and nonuniform kinodynamic search,

    L. Tang, H. Wang, Z. Liu, and Y . Wang, “A real-time quadrotor trajectory planning framework based on b-spline and nonuniform kinodynamic search,” Journal of Field Robotics , vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 452–475, 2021. 19

    2021

  54. [61]

    Teach-repeat- replan: A complete and robust system for aggressive flight in complex environments,

    F. Gao, L. Wang, B. Zhou, X. Zhou, J. Pan, and S. Shen, “Teach-repeat- replan: A complete and robust system for aggressive flight in complex environments,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1526– 1545, 2020

    2020

  55. [62]

    Real- time trajectory replanning for mavs using uniform b-splines and a 3d circular buffer,

    V . Usenko, L. V on Stumberg, A. Pangercic, and D. Cremers, “Real- time trajectory replanning for mavs using uniform b-splines and a 3d circular buffer,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) . IEEE, 2017, pp. 215–222

    2017

  56. [63]

    Computing large convex regions of obstacle- free space through semidefinite programming,

    R. Deits and R. Tedrake, “Computing large convex regions of obstacle- free space through semidefinite programming,” in Algorithmic Founda- tions of Robotics XI: Selected Contributions of the Eleventh International Workshop on the Algorithmic Foundations of Robotics. Springer, ...

    2015

  57. [64]

    Generating large convex polytopes directly on point clouds. arxiv 2020,

    X. Zhong, Y . Wu, D. Wang, Q. Wang, C. Xu, and F. Gao, “Generating large convex polytopes directly on point clouds. arxiv 2020,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2010.08744

    2020 arXiv

  58. [65]

    V oxel-grid based convex decomposition of 3d space for safe corridor generation,

    C. Toumieh and A. Lambert, “V oxel-grid based convex decomposition of 3d space for safe corridor generation,” Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems, vol. 105, no. 4, p. 87, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Polynomial trajectory planning for aggressive quadrotor flight in dense indoor environments,

    C. Richter, A. Bry, and N. Roy, “Polynomial trajectory planning for aggressive quadrotor flight in dense indoor environments,” in Robotics Research: The 16th International Symposium ISRR . Springer, 2016, pp. 649–666

    2016

  60. [68]

    Fast uav trajectory optimization using bilevel optimization with analytical gradients,

    W. Sun, G. Tang, and K. Hauser, “Fast uav trajectory optimization using bilevel optimization with analytical gradients,” IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 6, pp. 2010–2024, 2021

    2010

  61. [69]

    Snopt: An sqp algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization,

    P. E. Gill, W. Murray, and M. A. Saunders, “Snopt: An sqp algorithm for large-scale constrained optimization,” SIAM review, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 99–131, 2005

    2005

  62. [70]

    On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,

    A. W ¨achter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,” Mathematical programming, vol. 106, pp. 25–57, 2006

    2006

  63. [71]

    Hierarchical quadratic programming: Fast online humanoid-robot motion generation,

    A. Escande, N. Mansard, and P.-B. Wieber, “Hierarchical quadratic programming: Fast online humanoid-robot motion generation,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 7, pp. 1006– 1028, 2014

    2014

  64. [72]

    Quadrupedal locomotion using hierarchical operational space control,

    M. Hutter, H. Sommer, C. Gehring, M. Hoepflinger, M. Bloesch, and R. Siegwart, “Quadrupedal locomotion using hierarchical operational space control,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1047–1062, 2014

    2014

  65. [73]

    Optimization- based full body control for the darpa robotics challenge,

    S. Feng, E. Whitman, X. Xinjilefu, and C. G. Atkeson, “Optimization- based full body control for the darpa robotics challenge,” Journal of field robotics, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 293–312, 2015

    2015

  66. [74]

    Online hierarchical optimization for humanoid control

    S. Feng, “Online hierarchical optimization for humanoid control.” Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University, USA, 2016

    2016

  67. [75]

    Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking,

    J. Schulman, Y . Duan, J. Ho, A. Lee, I. Awwal, H. Bradlow, J. Pan, S. Patil, K. Goldberg, and P. Abbeel, “Motion planning with sequential convex optimization and convex collision checking,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1251–1270, 2014

    2014

  68. [76]

    Nocedal and S

    J. Nocedal and S. J. Wright, Numerical optimization. Springer, 1999

    1999

  69. [77]

    Fletcher, Practical methods of optimization

    R. Fletcher, Practical methods of optimization . John Wiley & Sons, 2000

    2000

  70. [78]

    An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non- linear parameters,

    D. W. Marquardt, “An algorithm for least-squares estimation of non- linear parameters,” Journal of the society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 431–441, 1963

    1963

  71. [79]

    Rog-map: An efficient robocentric occupancy grid map for large-scene and high-resolution lidar-based motion planning,

    Y . Ren, Y . Cai, F. Zhu, S. Liang, and F. Zhang, “Rog-map: An efficient robocentric occupancy grid map for large-scene and high-resolution lidar-based motion planning,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.14819 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  72. [80]

    Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,

    S. Liu, M. Watterson, K. Mohta, K. Sun, S. Bhattacharya, C. J. Taylor, and V . Kumar, “Planning dynamically feasible trajectories for quadrotors using safe flight corridors in 3-d complex environments,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 1688–1695, 2017

    2017

  73. [81]

    On-manifold model predictive control for trajectory tracking on robotic systems,

    G. Lu, W. Xu, and F. Zhang, “On-manifold model predictive control for trajectory tracking on robotic systems,” IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 2022

    2022

  74. [82]

    Full attitude control of an efficient quadrotor tail-sitter vtol uav with flexible modes,

    W. Xu, H. Gu, Y . Qing, J. Lin, and F. Zhang, “Full attitude control of an efficient quadrotor tail-sitter vtol uav with flexible modes,” in 2019 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2019, pp. 542–550

    2019

  75. [83]

    Knitro: An integrated package for nonlinear optimization,

    R. H. Byrd, J. Nocedal, and R. A. Waltz, “Knitro: An integrated package for nonlinear optimization,” Large-scale nonlinear optimization, pp. 35– 59, 2006

    2006

  76. [84]

    The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package,

    S. G. Johnson, “The NLopt nonlinear-optimization package,” https:// github.com/stevengj/nlopt, 2007

    2007

  77. [85]

    Simulation and flight experiments of a quadrotor tail-sitter vertical take-off and land- ing unmanned aerial vehicle with wide flight envelope,

    X. Lyu, H. Gu, J. Zhou, Z. Li, S. Shen, and F. Zhang, “Simulation and flight experiments of a quadrotor tail-sitter vertical take-off and land- ing unmanned aerial vehicle with wide flight envelope,” International Journal of Micro Air Vehicles , vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 303–317, 2018

    2018

  78. [86]

    Etkin and L

    B. Etkin and L. D. Reid, Dynamics of flight . Wiley New York, 1959, vol. 2

    1959

  79. [87]

    L. J. Clancy, Aerodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, 1975

    1975

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.