REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references
Imperative MPC: An End-to-End Self-Supervised Learning with Differentiable MPC for UAV Attitude Control
T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a UAV's IMU denoiser and its MPC controller improve together from a single self-supervised loss: the gap between predicted and measured attitude.
desk verdict A plausible self-supervised MPC framework whose consistency loss needs an identifiability argument; worth reviewing, but the evidence is not yet airtight. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing object is the upper-level cost $U(\theta)=\|x^I_{k+1}-x_{k+1}\|^2$, the squared difference between the IMU network's attitude estimate $x^I_{k+1}$ and the MPC model's predicted next state $x_{k+1}$. Gradients are backpropagated through $x^I_{k+1}$ while $x^I_k$ is frozen as the initial condition, and through the MPC solve via implicit differentiation through the KKT conditions, implemented as a single extra iLQR iteration at the stationary point. This one cost is the only connection between the perception network and the controller, and it is what makes the training self-supervised and end-to-end.
What would settle it
Collect a flight with a motion-capture or other ground-truth attitude reference and train the exact loop; if the discrepancy decreases while the absolute attitude error against ground truth stays flat or grows, the co-adaptation failure is present. Alternatively, inject a constant gyroscope bias and check whether the learned IMU filter removes it or the learned mass and inertia values absorb it.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
The central claim is that minimizing a single self-supervised discrepancy, the squared error between the attitude predicted by the MPC's dynamics model and the attitude estimated by the IMU network, can serve as the training signal for both modules at once. Earlier hybrid pipelines either need labels or train perception and control separately; here, the physical consistency between what the controller expects and what the sensor reports is the only supervisor. The authors formulate the system as a bi-level optimization, differentiate through the MPC's KKT conditions using a one-step iLQR correction, and backpropagate the upper-level loss into both the noise-filtering network and the MPC's learnable parameters. They demonstrate in a custom 6-DOF simulation and in a high-fidelity software-in-the-loop setup that the resulting system improves attitude RMSE, settling time, and steady-state error relative to the component baselines, and that it can identify mass and moment of inertia within a few percent of their true values.
Load-bearing premise
The training signal is the agreement between the IMU network's attitude estimate and the MPC model's prediction, so if both are wrong in the same way, the loss can shrink while the system remains wrong.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- If the central claim holds, a drone can adapt its attitude controller and its IMU noise model from flight experience alone, without motion-capture labels or hand-tuned dynamics parameters.
- The same discrepancy-minimization scheme should transfer to other perception-control pairs, such as vision-based state estimation feeding an MPC, whenever the downstream model can be differentiated.
- Because mass and moment of inertia are identified within a few percent, the loop doubles as a lightweight system-identification procedure that runs during normal flight.
- The framework inherits MPC's robustness: it handled 20 m/s impulse and step wind in simulation without ever seeing those winds during training, whereas a reinforcement-learning baseline lost control at 15 m/s.
Reading between the lines
- I read the framework as a general recipe for training perception through a differentiable optimizer: any sensor model whose output feeds an optimization can be trained against the optimizer's prediction errors rather than against ground truth, and nothing in the argument is specific to IMUs or quadrotors.
- The clearest risk the paper leaves open is co-adaptation: if the IMU network and the dynamics model drift together, the discrepancy can vanish while both remain wrong in absolute terms, so a natural test is to record the same flight with a motion-capture reference and check whether absolute attitude error shrinks as the discrepancy shrinks.
- A testable extension is to inject a known artificial bias into the IMU and see whether the training loop removes it or merely hides it inside the learned dynamics parameters, which would reveal how much identifiability the current loss provides.
- The same bi-level formulation could be applied to visual-inertial odometry with a differentiable planner, where the upper-level loss would be the planning cost rather than the attitude discrepancy.
Signed reviews
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. This manuscript proposes Imperative MPC (iMPC), an end-to-end self-supervised framework for UAV attitude control. A neural IMU module denoises raw accelerometer/gyroscope measurements and produces an attitude estimate x^I_k; a differentiable MPC (d-MPC) uses that estimate as the initial state and solves for optimal control actions; the upper-level loss (Eq. 9) minimizes the Euclidean discrepancy between the model-predicted next state x_{k+1} and the network-integrated next state x^I_{k+1}. Training is bi-level, with the lower level an MPC/iLQR problem and the upper level updating both the perception network and learnable dynamics parameters such as mass and moment of inertia. Experiments in a custom Python simulator and Gazebo PX4 SITL compare iMPC against classical IMU+MPC, learned-IMU+MPC, learnable-parameter MPC, and a PPO baseline, reporting improvements in settling time, RMSE, steady-state error, IMU attitude error, and learned mass/MOI accuracy under wind disturbances up to 20 m/s.
Significance. The proposed idea of using the MPC's model prediction as a supervisory signal for a learned IMU module, while jointly learning dynamics parameters, is timely and, if valid, would be a useful step toward label-free, end-to-end perception-control co-training for small aerial robots. The paper's strengths are its clear bi-level formulation, its use of a standard differentiable MPC library (PyPose), its two-simulator evaluation, and the explicit test of learned mass and moment of inertia. However, the central claim of simultaneous improvement rests on a consistency loss between two learnable quantities, and the paper neither analyzes this identifiability issue nor reports variance statistics for its ten repeated runs. The simulation-only evidence and the weak PPO baseline further limit the strength of the conclusions as they currently stand.
major comments (3)
- [Section 3.1, Eq. (9)] The upper-level loss U(θ)=||x^I_{k+1}−x_{k+1}||^2 is a consistency condition, not a correctness condition: both x^I_{k+1}=f_θ(z) and x_{k+1}=F(x^I_k,u_k;θ_dyn) depend on learnable parameters, and neither is anchored to ground truth during training. The discrepancy can be reduced by co-adaptation, e.g., the IMU network learning to reproduce the dynamics model's one-step prediction even when both are jointly wrong. Section 3.1 states that the discrepancy 'captures the imperfectness of perception and dynamics model' but provides no identifiability analysis or mechanism to attribute error between perception and dynamics. Without a ground-truth anchor, an ablation against a supervised baseline, or a training-time validation curve, the claimed simultaneous improvement in IMU accuracy, dynamics parameter identification, and control is not established.
- [Section 4.1 and Tables 1–2] The text states that all experiments are repeated ten times and reports 'negligible standard deviations,' but no error bars, confidence intervals, or significance tests are presented anywhere. Many headline differences are tiny, for example Table 1 RMSE of 0.684° for iMPC versus 0.685° for IMU++MPC at 20°, and Table 2 impulse 20 m/s RMSE of 0.354° versus 0.356° for IMU++MPC. These differences are likely within run-to-run noise, so the reported superiority of iMPC is not statistically supported.
- [Section 4.2 and Figure 3] The PPO baseline is trained only with wind disturbances up to 10 m/s and is then evaluated at 15–20 m/s, where the paper reports that it 'loses control.' This demonstrates out-of-distribution fragility of one PPO configuration, not a general limitation of reinforcement learning, and it is not a matched comparison in terms of training exposure. The claim that iMPC is robust 'compared to RL' is therefore overstated; a fair baseline would train PPO on the same wind range or evaluate iMPC on wind speeds beyond 20 m/s.
minor comments (5)
- [Table 2] Table 2, Gazebo 10 m/s impulse: the RMSE value 0.342 for IMU+MPC+ is inconsistent with the neighboring entries in that column (all near 0.64) and appears to be a typographical error.
- [Throughout] The manuscript uses 'UA V' throughout (e.g., in the title and abstract) and 'Netwon-Euler' in Section 3.3; these should be corrected to 'UAV' and 'Newton-Euler.'
- [Section 4.1] Section 4.1 states that all experiments are repeated ten times, but no standard deviations are reported; either report them or revise the statement.
- [Section 4.1] The RL baseline implementation details are incomplete: the observation, reward function, network architecture, and training hyperparameters are only sketched, which makes the PPO comparison hard to reproduce.
- [General] The paper does not include a statement on code or data availability; given the emphasis on reproducibility in learning-for-control venues, this should be added.
Circularity Check
The self-supervision signal in Eq. (9) is a consistency loss between the IMU network's own output and a model rollout initialized from that same network, so the claimed 'real-world vs predicted' supervision is self-referential and permits co-adaptation.
-
self definitional
[Fig. 1 caption; Section 3.1, Eq. (9)]
"actuates the real system to next state measured by the same IMU (x^I_{k+1}) ... The upper level (UL) cost is defined as the Euclidean distance between x_{k+1} and x^I_{k+1}: U(θ) .=||x^I_{k+1}-x_{k+1}||^2. ... This discrepancy ... captures the imperfectness of perception and dynamics model ... Notice that both x^I_k and x^I_{k+1} are indeed outputs of the perception module fθ."
The 'real-world' reference x^I_{k+1} is not an external measurement; it is the output of the same perception network fθ being trained. The model-predicted x_{k+1}=F(x^I_k, u_k; θ_dyn) is initialized from that same network's previous output and contains learnable dynamics parameters. Minimizing U therefore aligns two learned quantities with each other, with no ground-truth attitude anchor. The paper asserts the discrepancy 'captures the imperfectness of perception and dynamics model,' but Eq. (9) provides no attribution or identifiability mechanism to separate perception error from dynamics error; the system can drive U to zero by co-adaptation while both sides remain wrong.
full rationale
The identified circular step is the core training objective: Eq. (9) defines 'self-supervision' as the distance between the IMU network's attitude estimate and the MPC model's one-step rollout, where both terms depend on the learnable perception parameters and the model parameters are also learned. This is a genuine self-reference in the derivation of the paper's central claim that joint training simultaneously improves IMU denoising and MPC parameter identification. However, the paper does not stop at the training loss: it validates the resulting IMU estimates against ground truth (Tables 1-2) and the learned mass/MOI against true values (Table 3), and it compares against baselines in a separate Gazebo PX4 SITL environment. Those evaluations provide independent content and prevent the entire contribution from collapsing into a purely definitional tautology. The many self-citations (PyPose, AirIMU, Imperative Learning) are used as engineering components rather than as load-bearing proofs, so I do not treat them as circular. Overall, the central supervision signal is partially circular (score 6), but the empirical validation keeps it below the 'forced by definition' level.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (3)
- quadrotor mass m =
error <=1.7% (Table 3)
- moment of inertia J =
error <=3.5% (Table 3)
- MPC cost weights Q_k, p_k =
not provided
assumptions (5)
- domain assumption The quadrotor dynamics are exactly the Newton-Euler model in Eq. (10) with no unmodeled effects beyond injected disturbances.
- domain assumption IMU errors follow additive Gaussian noise, bias, and random walk per the Epson G365 model, and the network can express the true denoising function.
- domain assumption One extra iLQR iteration at the stationary point gives a gradient accurate enough to train the bi-level system.
- domain assumption Gazebo PX4 SITL is a faithful digital twin of real-world UAV behavior.
- domain assumption The PPO baseline is a fair and sufficiently tuned representative of RL methods.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Imperative MPC: An End-to-End Self-Supervised Learning with Differentiable MPC for UAV Attitude Control." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JQX4AOZN
@misc{pith2026250413088,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Imperative MPC: An End-to-End Self-Supervised Learning with Differentiable MPC for UAV Attitude Control},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JQX4AOZN}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13088}
}
read the original abstract
Modeling and control of nonlinear dynamics are critical in robotics, especially in scenarios with unpredictable external influences and complex dynamics. Traditional cascaded modular control pipelines often yield suboptimal performance due to conservative assumptions and tedious parameter tuning. Pure data-driven approaches promise robust performance but suffer from low sample efficiency, sim-to-real gaps, and reliance on extensive datasets. Hybrid methods combining learning-based and traditional model-based control in an end-to-end manner offer a promising alternative. This work presents a self-supervised learning framework combining learning-based inertial odometry (IO) module and differentiable model predictive control (d-MPC) for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) attitude control. The IO denoises raw IMU measurements and predicts UAV attitudes, which are then optimized by MPC for control actions in a bi-level optimization (BLO) setup, where the inner MPC optimizes control actions and the upper level minimizes discrepancy between real-world and predicted performance. The framework is thus end-to-end and can be trained in a self-supervised manner. This approach combines the strength of learning-based perception with the interpretable model-based control. Results show the effectiveness even under strong wind. It can simultaneously enhance both the MPC parameter learning and IMU prediction performance.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[5]
From pid to mpc: Control engineering methods development and applications
ˇStefan Koz´ak. From pid to mpc: Control engineering methods development and applications. In 2016 cybernetics & informatics (K&I) , pages 1–7. IEEE,
work page 2016
-
[7]
Faster model predictive control via self-supervised initialization learning
Zhaoxin Li, Letian Chen, Rohan Paleja, Subramanya Nageshrao, and Matthew Gombolay. Faster model predictive control via self-supervised initialization learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.03394,
-
[8]
Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors
Daniel Mellinger and Vijay Kumar. Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors. In 2011 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation , pages 2520–2525. IEEE,
work page 2011
-
[11]
Airimu: Learning uncertainty propagation for inertial odometry
Yuheng Qiu, Chen Wang, Xunfei Zhou, Youjie Xia, and Sebastian Scherer. Airimu: Learning uncertainty propagation for inertial odometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.04874,
-
[12]
Actor-critic model predictive control
Angel Romero, Yunlong Song, and Davide Scaramuzza. Actor-critic model predictive control. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 14777–14784. IEEE,
work page 2024
-
[14]
A robust and easy to implement method for imu calibration without external equipments
David Tedaldi, Alberto Pretto, and Emanuele Menegatti. A robust and easy to implement method for imu calibration without external equipments. In 2014 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA), pages 3042–3049. IEEE,
work page 2014
-
[15]
Imperative learning: A self-supervised neural-symbolic learning framework for robot autonomy
Chen Wang, Kaiyi Ji, Junyi Geng, Zhongqiang Ren, Taimeng Fu, Fan Yang, Yifan Guo, Haonan He, Xiangyu Chen, Zitong Zhan, et al. Imperative learning: A self-supervised neural-symbolic learning framework for robot autonomy. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.16087,
-
[16]
Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning
13 HE QIU GENG Grady Williams, Nolan Wagener, Brian Goldfain, Paul Drews, James M Rehg, Byron Boots, and Evangelos A Theodorou. Information theoretic mpc for model-based reinforcement learning. In 2017 IEEE international conference on robotics and automation (ICRA) , pages 1714–1721. IEEE,
work page 2017
Show all 18 references
-
[18]
iplanner: Imperative path planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11434,
Fan Yang, Chen Wang, Cesar Cadena, and Marco Hutter. iplanner: Imperative path planning.arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.11434,
-
[2011]
Neural lyapunov model predictive control: Learning safe global controllers from sub-optimal examples
Mayank Mittal, Marco Gallieri, Alessio Quaglino, Seyed Sina Mirrazavi Salehian, and Jan Koutn´ık. Neural lyapunov model predictive control: Learning safe global controllers from sub-optimal examples. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.10451,
2002 arXiv
-
[2016]
Research on engineering tuning methods of pid controller param- eters and its application
Shuxia Li and Jiesheng Wang. Research on engineering tuning methods of pid controller param- eters and its application. In Intelligent Computing Methodologies: 12th International Confer- ence, ICIC 2016, Lanzhou, China, August 2-5, 2016, Proceedings, Part III 12 , pages 563–57...
2016
-
[2017]
Bootstrapping rein- forcement learning with imitation for vision-based agile flight
Jiaxu Xing, Angel Romero, Leonard Bauersfeld, and Davide Scaramuzza. Bootstrapping rein- forcement learning with imitation for vision-based agile flight. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.12203,
-
[2018]
Hybrid lmc: Hybrid learning and model- based control for wheeled humanoid robot via ensemble deep reinforcement learning
Donghoon Baek, Amartya Purushottam, and Joao Ramos. Hybrid lmc: Hybrid learning and model- based control for wheeled humanoid robot via ensemble deep reinforcement learning. In 2022 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 9347–9354. IEEE,
2022
-
[2020]
Learning to plan maneuverable and agile flight trajectory with optimization embedded networks
11 HE QIU GENG Zhichao Han, Long Xu, Liuao Pei, and Fei Gao. Learning to plan maneuverable and agile flight trajectory with optimization embedded networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07736,
-
[2021]
Openai gym
Greg Brockman, Vicki Cheung, Ludwig Pettersson, Jonas Schneider, John Schulman, Jie Tang, and Wojciech Zaremba. Openai gym. arXiv preprint arXiv:1606.01540,
-
[2022]
Design, modeling and control for a tilt-rotor vtol uav in the presence of actuator failure
Mohammadreza Mousaei, Junyi Geng, Azarakhsh Keipour, Dongwei Bai, and Sebastian Scherer. Design, modeling and control for a tilt-rotor vtol uav in the presence of actuator failure. In 2022 12 IMPERATIVE MPC IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (I...
2022
-
[2023]
Proximal policy optimization algorithms
John Schulman, Filip Wolski, Prafulla Dhariwal, Alec Radford, and Oleg Klimov. Proximal policy optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.06347,
-
[2024]
Robust model predictive control with state estimation under set-membership uncertainty
Tianchen Ji, Junyi Geng, and Katherine Driggs-Campbell. Robust model predictive control with state estimation under set-membership uncertainty. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE,
2022
Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.