pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.06042 · v2 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 💻 cs.RO

Recognition: no theorem link

Accurate Trajectory Tracking with MPCC for Flapping-Wing MAVs

Charbel Toumieh , Jack Zeng , Niel Mistry , Dario Floreano
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-12 04:48 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords flapping-wing MAVornithoptertrajectory trackingmodel predictive contouring controlaerial roboticsnonlinear optimizationmicro aerial vehicle
0
0 comments X

The pith

MPCC with a compact model lets flapping-wing MAVs track complex paths with 6.5-9 cm accuracy at up to 3 m/s.

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

The paper establishes that a Model Predictive Contouring Control approach, using a new compact dynamical model, overcomes the tight coupling of lift, airspeed, and turning in flapping-wing micro aerial vehicles. Standard cascaded controllers produce persistent errors on maneuvers because they handle altitude, speed, and heading separately, while time-parameterized tracking demands speed profiles the vehicle cannot reliably generate. By parameterizing paths by arc length and optimizing progress online inside the predictive controller, the method removes the timing requirement and delivers nearly ten times lower tracking error than earlier ornithopter controllers. Readers care because this makes reliable autonomous flight feasible for quieter, safer flapping-wing platforms that rotary drones cannot match in noise or safety.

Core claim

The authors present a compact, continuously differentiable model of bird-scale ornithopter dynamics that captures the dominant aerodynamic couplings, then embed it in a Model Predictive Contouring Control framework. This framework tracks reference trajectories while simultaneously optimizing the rate of progress along arc-length-parameterized paths. Validation flights with the XFly ornithopter on circular and three-dimensional racing trajectories produce mean deviations of 6.5 to 9 cm at speeds up to 3 m/s, representing an almost 10-fold improvement over prior ornithopter control methods.

What carries the argument

Model Predictive Contouring Control (MPCC) that optimizes both control inputs and online progress along arc-length-parameterized trajectories, enabled by the compact continuously differentiable ornithopter model.

If this is right

  • Real-time nonlinear optimization becomes practical for ornithopter control without predefined speed profiles.
  • Persistent tracking errors during complex maneuvers are reduced by nearly an order of magnitude.
  • Three-dimensional racing trajectories can be followed accurately by flapping-wing vehicles.
  • The approach scales to speeds of at least 3 m/s while maintaining mean path deviation below 10 cm.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same progress-optimization idea could be tested on other underactuated aerial platforms that suffer from coupled dynamics.
  • Tighter tracking might enable new indoor or urban inspection tasks where noise and safety margins favor flapping wings.
  • Adding vision or wind sensing to the same controller could support fully autonomous operation without external tracking.

Load-bearing premise

The compact model captures the dominant couplings of bird-scale ornithopters well enough for real-time nonlinear optimization without exceeding available computation.

What would settle it

A repeated flight test on the same circular and 3D trajectories at 3 m/s that produces mean deviation above 10 cm or fails to complete the optimization loop in real time would falsify the claimed accuracy and feasibility.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.06042 by Charbel Toumieh, Dario Floreano, Jack Zeng, Niel Mistry.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Time-lapse of the ornithopter passing through a gate during trajectory view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Control architecture. A world map defines gate positions and view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: MPCC error decomposition at two prediction steps. The position error view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Circle tracking comparison with Escobar et al. [13] on the XFly view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Circle tracking comparison with Escobar et al. [13] on the XFly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental flight results on two three-dimensional racing trajectories over 3 laps. view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Experimental flight results on two three-dimensional racing trajectories over 3 laps. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantitative performance analysis over 3 laps on 2 tracks. Left: box view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Quantitative performance analysis over 3 laps on 2 tracks. Left: box [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Flapping-wing micro aerial vehicles offer quieter and safer operation than rotary-wing drones, yet achieving precise autonomous control of bird-scale ornithopters remains challenging: lift, airspeed, and turning authority are tightly coupled and governed by only a few control inputs. Conventional cascaded controllers treat altitude, speed, and heading independently, producing persistent tracking errors during complex maneuvers, while time-parameterized trajectory tracking requires predefined speed profiles that existing methods cannot robustly produce for these coupled dynamics. We address both limitations simultaneously with a Model Predictive Contouring Control (MPCC) approach that tracks arc-length-parameterized trajectories while optimizing progress online, eliminating the need for predefined timing. However, MPCC requires a dynamical model that captures the coupled aerodynamics without exceeding the computational budget of real-time nonlinear optimization. Here, we propose a compact, continuously differentiable model that captures the dominant couplings of bird-scale ornithopters, enabling real-time predictive control. We validated the method with the XFly ornithopter flying along circular and three-dimensional racing trajectories and achieved a mean deviation from the reference trajectory between 6.5 and 9 cm at speeds up to 3 m/s, which represents an almost 10-fold improvement over prior ornithopter control methods.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces a Model Predictive Contouring Control (MPCC) approach for flapping-wing micro aerial vehicles (MAVs) to achieve accurate trajectory tracking. It proposes a compact, continuously differentiable model that captures the dominant coupled aerodynamics of bird-scale ornithopters, allowing real-time nonlinear optimization. The method tracks arc-length-parameterized trajectories by optimizing progress online, avoiding the need for predefined speed profiles. Validation experiments with the XFly ornithopter on circular and three-dimensional racing trajectories report mean deviations from the reference trajectory of 6.5 to 9 cm at speeds up to 3 m/s, representing an almost 10-fold improvement over prior ornithopter control methods.

Significance. If the results hold, this paper would make a significant contribution to the field of flapping-wing MAV control by demonstrating that a simplified model can enable effective MPCC for complex maneuvers on real hardware. The physical validation on the XFly platform with concrete tracking error metrics at relevant speeds provides strong empirical support for the approach. This could advance applications in quiet, safe aerial robotics. The strength lies in the hardware experiments rather than simulation, addressing the challenges of coupled dynamics directly.

major comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract claims a mean deviation between 6.5 and 9 cm and an almost 10-fold improvement, but without accompanying details on the model equations, experimental protocol, number of runs, variance, or specific prior methods used for comparison, it is difficult to assess the validity of these numbers as supporting the central claim of the paper.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract introduces MPCC without expanding the acronym on first use, which may reduce clarity for readers unfamiliar with the term.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback and positive assessment of the hardware validation and potential impact of our MPCC approach for flapping-wing MAVs. We address the major comment below.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] The abstract claims a mean deviation between 6.5 and 9 cm and an almost 10-fold improvement, but without accompanying details on the model equations, experimental protocol, number of runs, variance, or specific prior methods used for comparison, it is difficult to assess the validity of these numbers as supporting the central claim of the paper.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract could better contextualize the quantitative claims for readers. While the abstract is necessarily concise and cannot include full model equations or protocols, we have revised it in the updated manuscript to briefly note the experimental basis: results from the XFly ornithopter on circular and 3D racing trajectories at speeds up to 3 m/s, with the 10-fold improvement relative to prior cascaded controllers (detailed in Section V-D with specific citations). The compact model equations appear in Section III, the full experimental protocol, number of runs, and variance statistics are reported in Section V (including mean and standard deviation across trials), and the comparison methods are specified there. These revisions make the abstract claims more readily assessable while preserving its summary format; we did not embed equations due to length constraints but explicitly reference their location. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation and validation are independent of inputs

full rationale

The paper proposes a compact differentiable model for ornithopter aerodynamics and applies MPCC to arc-length parameterized trajectories. The central performance claim (6.5-9 cm mean tracking error at up to 3 m/s on the physical XFly vehicle) is obtained from hardware experiments on circular and 3D racing paths, not from fitting parameters to the same data or from any self-referential prediction. No equation reduces to its own inputs by construction, no load-bearing self-citation chain is invoked to justify uniqueness or the model form, and the experimental outcome supplies external falsifiable evidence. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against the reported physical benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review is based on the abstract only; the central claim rests on the unverified assumption that the compact model is adequate for the dynamics and real-time constraints.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The compact continuously differentiable model captures the dominant aerodynamic couplings of bird-scale ornithopters.
    Invoked to justify real-time predictive control capability.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5519 in / 1214 out tokens · 44778 ms · 2026-05-12T04:48:12.785949+00:00 · methodology

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Science, technology and the future of small autonomous drones,

    D. Floreano and R. J. Wood, “Science, technology and the future of small autonomous drones,”nature, vol. 521, no. 7553, pp. 460–466, 2015

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    Controlled flight of a biologically inspired, insect-scale robot,

    K. Y . Ma, P. Chirarattananon, S. B. Fuller, and R. J. Wood, “Controlled flight of a biologically inspired, insect-scale robot,”Science, vol. 340, no. 6132, pp. 603–607, 2013

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Untethered flight of an insect-sized flapping-wing microscale aerial vehicle,

    N. T. Jafferis, E. F. Helbling, M. Karpelson, and R. J. Wood, “Untethered flight of an insect-sized flapping-wing microscale aerial vehicle,”Nature, vol. 570, no. 7762, pp. 491–495, 2019

    work page 2019

  4. [4]

    Collision resilient insect-scale soft-actuated aerial robots with high agility,

    Y . Chen, S. Xu, Z. Ren, and P. Chirarattananon, “Collision resilient insect-scale soft-actuated aerial robots with high agility,”IEEE Trans- actions on Robotics, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 1752–1764, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Aerobatic maneuvers in insect-scale flapping-wing aerial robots via deep-learned robust tube model predictive control,

    Y .-H. Hsiao, A. Tagliabue, O. Matteson, S. Kim, T. Zhao, J. P. How, and Y . Chen, “Aerobatic maneuvers in insect-scale flapping-wing aerial robots via deep-learned robust tube model predictive control,”Science Advances, vol. 11, no. 49, p. eaea8716, 2025

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    Controlled flight of an insect-scale flapping-wing robot via integrated onboard sensing and computation,

    Y .-H. Hsiao, Q. P. Kieu, Z. Guan, S. Kim, J. Cai, O. Matteson, J. P. How, E. F. Helbling, and Y . Chen, “Controlled flight of an insect-scale flapping-wing robot via integrated onboard sensing and computation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.08328, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Efficient flapping wing drone arrests high-speed flight using post-stall soaring,

    Y .-W. Chin, J. M. Kok, Y .-Q. Zhu, W.-L. Chan, J. S. Chahl, B. C. Khoo, and G.-K. Lau, “Efficient flapping wing drone arrests high-speed flight using post-stall soaring,”Science Robotics, vol. 5, no. 44, p. eaba2386, 2020

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Design of the high-payload flapping wing robot e-flap,

    R. Zufferey, J. Tormo-Barbero, M. M. Guzmán, F. J. Maldonado, E. Sanchez-Laulhe, P. Grau, M. Pérez, J. Á. Acosta, and A. Ollero, “Design of the high-payload flapping wing robot e-flap,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 3097–3104, 2021

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    How ornithopters can perch autonomously on a branch,

    R. Zufferey, J. Tormo-Barbero, M. M. Guzmán, F. J. Maldonado, E. Sanchez-Laulhe, P. Grau, M. Pérez, J. R. Martínez-de Dios, and A. Ollero, “How ornithopters can perch autonomously on a branch,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, p. 7713, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Wing-strain-based flight control of flapping-wing drones through reinforcement learning,

    T. Kim, I. Hong, S. Im, S. Rho, M. Kim, Y . Roh, C. Kim, J. Park, D. Lim, D. Lee, S. Lee, J. Lee, I. Back, J. Cho, M. R. Hong, S. Kang, J. Lee, S. Seo, U. Kim, Y .-M. Choi, J.-s. Koh, S. Han, and D. Kang, “Wing-strain-based flight control of flapping-wing drones through reinforcement learning,”Nature Machine Intelligence, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 992–1005, 2024

    work page 2024

  11. [11]

    A review on flapping-wing robots: Recent progress and challenges,

    S. Rafee Nekoo, R. Rashad, C. De Wagter, S. B. Fuller, G. d. Croon, S. Stramigioli, and A. Ollero, “A review on flapping-wing robots: Recent progress and challenges,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 44, no. 14, pp. 2305–2339, 2025

    work page 2025

  12. [12]

    Vector field aided trajectory tracking by a 10-gram flapping-wing micro aerial vehicle,

    A. Ndoye, J. de Jesus Castillo-Zamora, S. Samorah-Laki, R. Miot, E. Van Ruymbeke, and F. Ruffier, “Vector field aided trajectory tracking by a 10-gram flapping-wing micro aerial vehicle,” inProc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), London, UK, 2023, pp. 5379–5385

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Dynamical model and tracking controller for a novel flapping wing drone platform,

    J. C. Escobar, L. Le-Guellec, E. Van Ruymbeke, N. Marchand, T. Engels, and F. Ruffier, “Dynamical model and tracking controller for a novel flapping wing drone platform,” in2025 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS). IEEE, 2025, pp. 91–98

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    An all servo-driven bird-like flapping-wing aerial robot capable of autonomous flight,

    H. Huang, W. He, J. Wang, L. Zhang, and Q. Fu, “An all servo-driven bird-like flapping-wing aerial robot capable of autonomous flight,” IEEE/ASME Transactions on Mechatronics, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 5484– 5494, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

    A compact autonomous flapping- wing aerial vehicle: Design, modeling, and vision-based control for narrow gap traversal,

    J. Jiang, W. Xu, E. Pan, and Z. Gong, “A compact autonomous flapping- wing aerial vehicle: Design, modeling, and vision-based control for narrow gap traversal,”IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 1562–1573, 2026

    work page 2026

  16. [16]

    Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,

    D. Mellinger and V . Kumar, “Minimum snap trajectory generation and control for quadrotors,” inProc. IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Shanghai, China, 2011, pp. 2520– 2525

    work page 2011

  17. [17]

    Optimization-based au- tonomous racing of 1:43 scale RC cars,

    A. Liniger, A. Domahidi, and M. Morari, “Optimization-based au- tonomous racing of 1:43 scale RC cars,”Optimal Control Applications and Methods, vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 628–647, 2015

    work page 2015

  18. [18]

    Model predictive contouring control for time-optimal quadrotor flight,

    A. Romero, S. Sun, P. Foehn, and D. Scaramuzza, “Model predictive contouring control for time-optimal quadrotor flight,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 3340–3356, 2022

    work page 2022

  19. [19]

    Mpcc++: Model predictive contouring control for time- optimal flight with safety constraints,

    M. Krinner, A. Romero, L. Bauersfeld, M. Zeilinger, A. Carron, and D. Scaramuzza, “Mpcc++: Model predictive contouring control for time- optimal flight with safety constraints,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.17551, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    W. Shyy, H. Aono, C.-k. Kang, and H. Liu,An Introduction to Flapping Wing Aerodynamics, ser. Cambridge Aerospace Series. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  21. [21]

    X-Fly: The first sensor-assisted ornithopter drone,

    Bionic Bird, “X-Fly: The first sensor-assisted ornithopter drone,” https: //www.bionicbird.com/world/shop/x-fly/, 2024, accessed: 2025

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and opti- mal control,

    J. A. E. Andersson, J. Gillis, G. Horn, J. B. Rawlings, and M. Diehl, “CasADi – A software framework for nonlinear optimization and opti- mal control,”Mathematical Programming Computation, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–36, 2019

    work page 2019

  23. [23]

    KNITRO: An integrated pack- age for nonlinear optimization,

    R. H. Byrd, J. Nocedal, and R. A. Waltz, “KNITRO: An integrated pack- age for nonlinear optimization,” inLarge-Scale Nonlinear Optimization, G. D. Pillo and M. Roma, Eds. Springer, 2006, pp. 35–59

    work page 2006

  24. [24]

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

    A. Wächter and L. T. Biegler, “On the implementation of an interior- point filter line-search algorithm for large-scale nonlinear programming,” Mathematical Programming, vol. 106, no. 1, pp. 25–57, 2006

    work page 2006

  25. [25]

    de Boor,A Practical Guide to Splines, ser

    C. de Boor,A Practical Guide to Splines, ser. Applied Mathematical Sciences. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1978, vol. 27

    work page 1978

  26. [26]

    A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,

    R. E. Kalman, “A new approach to linear filtering and prediction problems,”Journal of Basic Engineering, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 35–45, 1960

    work page 1960

  27. [27]

    High-speed planning in unknown envi- ronments for multirotors considering drag,

    C. Toumieh and A. Lambert, “High-speed planning in unknown envi- ronments for multirotors considering drag,” in2021 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA). IEEE, 2021, pp. 7844–7850

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Decentralized multi-agent planning using model predictive con- trol and time-aware safe corridors,

    ——, “Decentralized multi-agent planning using model predictive con- trol and time-aware safe corridors,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 11 110–11 117, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    High-speed motion planning for aerial swarms in unknown and cluttered environments,

    C. Toumieh and D. Floreano, “High-speed motion planning for aerial swarms in unknown and cluttered environments,”IEEE Transactions on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 3642–3656, 2024

    work page 2024

  30. [30]

    Farin,Curves and Surfaces for CAGD: A Practical Guide, 5th ed

    G. Farin,Curves and Surfaces for CAGD: A Practical Guide, 5th ed. Morgan Kaufmann, 2002

    work page 2002

  31. [31]

    Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces,

    R. Storn and K. Price, “Differential evolution – a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces,”Journal of Global Optimization, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 341–359, 1997

    work page 1997

  32. [32]

    Algorithm 778: L-BFGS- B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization,

    C. Zhu, R. H. Byrd, P. Lu, and J. Nocedal, “Algorithm 778: L-BFGS- B: Fortran subroutines for large-scale bound-constrained optimization,” ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 550– 560, 1997

    work page 1997