Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 25 references

NMPC-Lander: Nonlinear MPC with Barrier Function for UAV Landing on a Mobile Platform

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that a single full-state nonlinear model predictive controller with a discrete-time control barrier function can land a quadrotor on static and moving platforms while avoiding obstacles, achieving average final errors of…

desk verdict A useful onboard NMPC-CBF landing demo with solid FPE numbers, but the 'nearly threefold' improvement over B-spline+A* is not supported by the evidence. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.03931 v1 pith:C5PUKUSG submitted 2025-05-06 cs.RO

Amber Batool , Faryal Batool , Roohan Ahmed Khan , Muhammad Ahsan Mustafa , Aleksey Fedoseev , Dzmitry Tsetserukou This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords NonlinearModelPredictiveControlBarrierFunctionAutonomouslandingMobileplatformQuadrotorObstacleavoidanceReal-timeonboard
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 paper tries to establish that one predictive controller, running entirely onboard, can both steer a quadrotor toward a landing platform and keep it away from obstacles, with no separate path planner. It embeds a positional safety constraint into a 12-state nonlinear model predictive controller and tests the result in simulation and on real hardware. The measured outcome is a final landing error of 9.0 cm on a static platform and 11 cm on a moving platform when an obstacle lies in the descent path, and the controller beats a B-spline-with-A* planner by roughly a factor of three in position tracking. If this holds, routine battery-swap and delivery landings could drop the need for external planning infrastructure.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the control-barrier-function constraint appended to the NMPC optimization. The paper defines $h(x,y) = (x-x_{obs})^2 + (y-y_{obs})^2 - r_{safe}^2$, with $r_{safe} = r_{obs} + 30$ cm, and enforces $\Delta h \ge -\gamma h$ at every prediction step, so predicted positions stay outside a safety disk around each obstacle. This constraint is carried by an NMPC formulated with multiple shooting over a horizon of ten steps at 0.1 s sampling, a full 12-state quadrotor model, a terminal cost on the final state, and a ground-effect term in vertical acceleration. The barrier function supplies the safety layer; the NMPC supplies tracking and landing.

What would settle it

Repeat the obstacle-landing experiments with the obstacle placed closer than the 30 cm safety margin and record the minimum distance achieved across all trials; a single trial in which the drone enters the safety disk, or a single optimization failure during descent, would refute the claim that the barrier constraint enforces safety.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that discrete-time Control Barrier Function constraints can be folded directly into a full-state NMPC formulation for landing, so a single optimization problem generates the descent trajectory, tracks the platform, and maintains a 30 cm safety margin around static obstacles. On real hardware with state feedback from a motion-capture system, the approach achieves average final point errors of 9.0 cm for static and 11 cm for dynamic platforms in obstacle scenarios; the dynamic-platform test used a target moving at 1 m/s. The same controller also outperforms the B-spline combined with A* method by nearly threefold in final position error, 11 cm versus 34.6 cm.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's safety claim rests on the assumption that the discrete-time barrier constraint $\Delta h \ge -\gamma h$ is satisfiable at every prediction step, but the barrier measures only horizontal position while the control inputs act through acceleration, and the relative-degree and feasibility conditions of barrier-function theory are never checked.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single onboard controller can replace the separate path planner and tracking controller in a landing stack.
  • Obstacle avoidance is enforced inside the optimization, so the descent trajectory does not need to be re-planned when a static obstacle appears.
  • Adding an obstacle increases real-world landing error by only a few centimeters: from 3.9 to 9.0 cm for static platforms and from 6.4 to 11 cm for dynamic platforms.
  • On a platform moving at 1 m/s, the controller keeps final landing error under 11 cm while maintaining a 30 cm safety margin around the obstacle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An extension the paper leaves implicit is to lift the barrier from horizontal position to the full 12-state vector, which would let the same controller avoid moving obstacles rather than only static disks.
  • Because the controller already tracks a moving platform, adding a prediction of platform motion would likely reduce the 11 cm dynamic error without changing the architecture.
  • The threefold comparison should be read carefully: the baseline ran in simulation at 0.8 m/s, while the proposed controller ran on hardware at 1.0 m/s; a matched hardware comparison would isolate the source of the gain.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes NMPC-Lander, an onboard nonlinear model predictive control (NMPC) architecture combined with a control barrier function (CBF) constraint for autonomous quadrotor landing on static and moving platforms. The paper presents a 12-state quadrotor model with a ground-effect modification, an NMPC formulation with multiple shooting (Eqs. 4–7), an additional platform-tracking positional cost (Eq. 8), and a CBF constraint (Eq. 11) for static obstacle avoidance. Evaluation is carried out in Gazebo simulation and in real-world experiments with VICON motion capture and an Orange Pi 5B onboard computer. Reported average final point errors (FPE) from Table I are 2.1 cm (simulation, no obstacle) and 3.9 cm (real-world, no obstacle) for static landing, rising to 3.4 cm and 9.0 cm with an obstacle; for dynamic landing the corresponding values are 2.5 cm and 6.4 cm without obstacle, and 5.2 cm and 11.0 cm with obstacle. The paper claims that NMPC-Lander outperforms a B-spline combined with A* planning method by nearly threefold based on Table II, which compares an 11 cm real-world FPE with a 34.6 cm literature simulation value.

Significance. If the measured FPE values are reproducible, the paper provides a useful hardware demonstration of onboard NMPC-based landing with obstacle avoidance, and the simulated-versus-real consistency in Table I is a genuine strength. The contribution is a system integration result rather than a new theoretical one: the CBF guarantee is imported from [25] without new derivation, and the comparative claim is presented as a headline result. The measured landing-precision claims are self-contained and plausible, but the unsupported cross-paper comparison and the unverified safety preconditions are load-bearing issues that currently limit the paper's conclusions.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV-C, Table II] The claimed 'nearly threefold' improvement over the B-spline combined with A* method is not established by the data. The 34.6 cm value is a single literature simulation result from Guo et al. [18] with a platform velocity of 0.8 m/s, while the 11 cm value is the authors' real-world dynamic-platform result at 1.0 m/s, obtained with VICON state feedback, an Orange Pi 5B onboard pipeline, and a different obstacle layout and evaluation protocol. No B-spline + A* baseline was run in the authors' own setup, and the FPE metric is not matched across the two systems. Because this comparison appears in the abstract, the comparative-analysis section, and the conclusion, it is a load-bearing claim. It should be removed or replaced with a controlled baseline in the authors' own simulation and hardware settings; otherwise the statement of 'nearly threefold' outperformance is unsupported.
  2. [Section III-D, Eq. (11)] The discrete-time CBF constraint is asserted to provide a formal safety guarantee by citing [25], but the preconditions of that theory are not verified. The barrier h(x,y) in Eq. (9) depends only on position, while the control inputs u enter through the acceleration channel of the 12-state dynamics, so the relative degree of h with respect to u is not established. The paper also does not define the discrete-time difference Δh in Eq. (11), does not justify the chosen γ=0.4, and does not show recursive feasibility of the CBF constraint over the prediction horizon. Consequently the statement that Eq. (11) 'ensures that the drone maintains a safe distance from the obstacle at each time step' exceeds what the manuscript demonstrates. The authors should either verify the discrete-time CBF conditions for the actual sampled dynamics or revise the claim to empirical obstacle avoidance based on the experiments.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The text contains a typo: 'UA V' should be 'UAV'; the PDF also shows irregular spacing before punctuation in several places.
  2. [Section IV-B, Table I] The text reports an average FPE of 'approximately 6.5 cm' for real-world static landing and '8.2 cm' for real-world dynamic landing; these appear to be averages of the two real-world rows in Table I, but this should be stated explicitly to avoid apparent inconsistency with the individual FPE values of 9.0 cm and 11.0 cm.
  3. [Eq. (2)] The ground-effect factor TIGE is written as a multiplicative reduction of the rotor thrust, whereas ground effect classically increases thrust near the ground; please clarify the sign convention and whether TIGE denotes an efficiency factor or the actual thrust, since Eq. (1) uses it as a thrust multiplier.
  4. [Section III-D] The CBF as defined in Eq. (9) handles a single point obstacle in the x-y plane. The paper does not discuss extension to multiple obstacles, obstacles with vertical extent, or obstacles whose position is time-varying; a sentence on these limitations would improve clarity.
  5. [Figures 5 and 6] The predicted-versus-observed plots appear to show a single representative run. Since Table I reports averages over 10 trials, reporting mean trajectories with standard deviations or an explicit error metric per trial would strengthen the experimental presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the landing errors are measured results and the NMPC-CBF derivation is self-contained.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claims are average Final Point Error (FPE) values obtained from Gazebo simulations and real-world hardware experiments (Table I). These are measured outcomes, not quantities derived from the NMPC cost weights or the CBF tuning parameters, so they cannot reduce by construction to the paper's inputs. The NMPC formulation (Eqs. 4-8) defines a trajectory-tracking and landing objective, while the CBF constraint (Eqs. 9-11) is a standard discrete-time control barrier function constraint cited to external work by Zeng et al. [25]; the paper does not import a uniqueness theorem from its own authors, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The self-citations to Fedoseev et al. [9] and Aschu et al. [12], Peter et al. [13], Gupta et al. [14], and Gupta et al. [15] appear only in the related-work survey and are not load-bearing for the claimed contributions. The notable weakness is the comparative claim in Section IV-C: the B-spline + A* baseline from Guo et al. [18] was evaluated only in simulation at 0.8 m/s with an unspecified setup, while the 11 cm NMPC-Lander result comes from a real-world experiment at 1.0 m/s, so the 'nearly threefold' statement is not an apples-to-apples comparison. Similarly, the formal safety guarantee of the CBF constraint is assumed from [25] without checking relative-degree or feasibility conditions for the 12-state model. Both of these issues are correctness or benchmarking concerns, not circularity: no step of the derivation assumes the conclusion it is supposed to establish, and no empirical result is manufactured from the model equations. The paper is therefore self-contained with respect to its own derivation chain.

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

The core landing measurements are self-contained, but the safety claim relies on unverified CBF theory, the comparative claim relies on a cross-paper number, and the model/tuning details are not fully disclosed.

free parameters (5)
  • Cost weights Q, R, Qterminal = not reported
    State and control cost weights in Eq. (5)-(6) are hand-tuned in Gazebo; values are not given, so the objective function is under-specified.
  • Position tracking weights lambda_1, lambda_2, lambda_3 = not reported
    Weights in Eq. (8) control the relative importance of x, y, z tracking for platform landing; values not reported.
  • CBF rate gamma = 0.4
    Tuning parameter for the barrier function rate in Eq. (11); chosen by hand, value stated but no sensitivity analysis.
  • Safety margin r_safety_margin = 30 cm
    User-defined extra distance added to obstacle radius in Eq. (10); affects how conservative avoidance is.
  • Prediction horizon N and sampling time delta_t = N=10, delta_t=0.1 s
    Discretization and horizon for the NMPC multiple-shooting problem; chosen by hand, no analysis of the effect on performance.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Quadrotor motion is correctly modeled by the stated 12-state dynamics with Euler discretization (Eq. 4) and the ground effect correction (Eqs. 1-2).
    Controller predictions and landing performance depend on model fidelity; no model-error analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper The discrete-time CBF constraint (Eq. 11) guarantees obstacle avoidance in the closed-loop NMPC system.
    Standard CBF guarantees require relative degree and feasibility conditions that are not verified for this nonlinear 12-state system with position-dependent barrier and acceleration-level control.
  • domain assumption VICON motion capture provides accurate, low-latency pose estimates for the drone and platform in real-world tests.
    All state feedback and the reported final point errors depend on this external measurement setup.
  • ad hoc to paper The B-spline + A* FPE of 34.6 cm from ref. [18] is directly comparable to the NMPC-Lander results.
    The comparison assumes similar obstacle layout, platform speed, state estimation, and evaluation protocol, but the baseline was simulation-only and used a slower platform.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of NMPC-Lander: Nonlinear MPC with Barrier Function for UAV Landing on a Mobile Platform." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C5PUKUSG

@misc{pith2026250503931,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: NMPC-Lander: Nonlinear MPC with Barrier Function for UAV Landing on a Mobile Platform},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C5PUKUSG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.03931}
}
read the original abstract

Quadcopters are versatile aerial robots gaining popularity in numerous critical applications. However, their operational effectiveness is constrained by limited battery life and restricted flight range. To address these challenges, autonomous drone landing on stationary or mobile charging and battery-swapping stations has become an essential capability. In this study, we present NMPC-Lander, a novel control architecture that integrates Nonlinear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) with Control Barrier Functions (CBF) to achieve precise and safe autonomous landing on both static and dynamic platforms. Our approach employs NMPC for accurate trajectory tracking and landing, while simultaneously incorporating CBF to ensure collision avoidance with static obstacles. Experimental evaluations on the real hardware demonstrate high precision in landing scenarios, with an average final position error of 9.0 cm and 11 cm for stationary and mobile platforms, respectively. Notably, NMPC-Lander outperforms the B-spline combined with the A* planning method by nearly threefold in terms of position tracking, underscoring its superior robustness and practical effectiveness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.03931 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. NMPC-Lander Technology Demonstration: Drone perform [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. System architecture of the NMPC-Lander. both linear and nonlinear Model Predictive Control (MPC) strategies have been widely used for trajectory planning and tracking. For example, Pozzan et al. [1] proposed a hybrid control architecture that combines NMPC for tra￾jectory tracking with PID controllers for stability during landings on moving platforms. Zhu et al. [2] enhanced NMPC by integrating an Unscented Kalman F… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Quadrotor Reference System B. Non-Linear Model Predictive Control (NMPC) NMPC is implemented using the multiple-shooting tech￾nique [17] to enable point-to-point autonomous landing of a quadrotor on either a stationary or moving platform. The controller jointly plans and tracks the landing trajectory, ensuring a smooth and precise descent by continuously observing all drone states. The NMPC serves dual purposes as b… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gazebo Simulation for NMPC-CBF Framework [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of predicted and observed linear positions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Comparison of predicted and observed angular positions and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Landing visualization: (a)–(b) simulation results in Gazebo, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Landing visualization: (a)–(b) simulation results in Gazebo, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [25]

    Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,

    J. Zeng, B. Zhang, and K. Sreenath, “Safety-critical model predictive control with discrete-time control barrier function,” in Proc. 2021 American Control Conference (ACC) , 2021, pp. 3882–3889

    work page 2021

  2. [18]

    Simultaneous obstacles avoidance and robust autonomous landing of a uav on a moving vehicle,

    J. Guo, X. Dong, Y . Gao, D. Li, and Z. Tu, “Simultaneous obstacles avoidance and robust autonomous landing of a uav on a moving vehicle,” Electronics, vol. 11, no. 19, 2022

    work page 2022

  3. [1]

    Non-linear model predic- tive control for autonomous landing of a uav on a moving platform,

    B. Pozzan, B. Elaamery, and A. Cenedese, “Non-linear model predic- tive control for autonomous landing of a uav on a moving platform,” in 2022 IEEE Conference on Control Technology and Applications (CCTA), 2022, pp. 1240–1245

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    A nonlinear model predictive control based control method to quadrotor landing on moving platform,

    B. Zhu, B. Zhang, and Q. Ge, “A nonlinear model predictive control based control method to quadrotor landing on moving platform,” Cognitive Computation and Systems , vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 118–131, 2023

    work page 2023

  5. [3]

    Autonomous landing of an uav on a moving platform using model predictive control,

    J. A. Maces-Hernandez, F. Defay, and C. Chauffaut, “Autonomous landing of an uav on a moving platform using model predictive control,” 2017 11th Asian Control Conference (ASCC), pp. 2298–2303, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [4]

    Vision-based autonomous landing using an mpc-controlled micro uav on a moving platform,

    A. Mohammadi, Y . Feng, C. Zhang, S. Rawashdeh, and S. Baek, “Vision-based autonomous landing using an mpc-controlled micro uav on a moving platform,” in Proc. 2020 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , 2020, pp. 771–780

    work page 2020

  7. [5]

    Autonomous landing of a uav on a moving platform using model predictive control,

    Y . Feng, C. Zhang, S. Baek, S. Rawashdeh, and A. Mohammadi, “Autonomous landing of a uav on a moving platform using model predictive control,” Drones, vol. 2, no. 4, 2018

    work page 2018

  8. [6]

    Dynamic landing of an autonomous quadrotor on a moving platform in turbulent wind condi- tions,

    A. Paris, B. T. Lopez, and J. P. How, “Dynamic landing of an autonomous quadrotor on a moving platform in turbulent wind condi- tions,” in Proc. 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2020, pp. 9577–9583

    work page 2020

Show all 25 references
  1. [7]

    Autonomous landing of a quadrotor on a moving platform via model predictive control,

    K. Guo, P. Tang, H. Wang, D. Lin, and X. Cui, “Autonomous landing of a quadrotor on a moving platform via model predictive control,” Aerospace, vol. 9, no. 1, 2022

    2022

  2. [8]

    Vision-based autonomous quadrotor landing on a moving platform,

    D. Falanga, A. Zanchettin, A. Simovic, J. Delmerico, and D. Scara- muzza, “Vision-based autonomous quadrotor landing on a moving platform,” in Proc. 2017 IEEE International Symposium on Safety, Security and Rescue Robotics (SSRR) , 2017, pp. 200–207

    2017

  3. [9]

    Dronetrap: Drone catch- ing in midair by soft robotic hand with color-based force detection and hand gesture recognition,

    A. Fedoseev, V . Serpiva, E. Karmanova, M. A. Cabrera, V . Shirokun, I. Vasilev, S. Savushkin, and D. Tsetserukou, “Dronetrap: Drone catch- ing in midair by soft robotic hand with color-based force detection and hand gesture recognition,” in Proc. 2021 IEEE 4th International C...

    2021

  4. [10]

    Landing a uav on static or moving platforms using a formation controller,

    M. F. S. Rabelo, A. S. Brand ˜ao, and M. Sarcinelli-Filho, “Landing a uav on static or moving platforms using a formation controller,” IEEE Systems Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 37–45, 2021

    2021

  5. [11]

    Landing of a fixed-wing uav on a mobile ground vehi- cle,

    T. Muskardin, G. Balmer, S. Wlach, K. Kondak, M. Laiacker, and A. Ollero, “Landing of a fixed-wing uav on a mobile ground vehi- cle,” in Proc. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , 2016, pp. 1237–1242

    2016

  6. [12]

    Mar- lander: A local path planning for drone swarms using multiagent deep reinforcement learning,

    D. Aschu, R. Peter, S. Karaf, A. Fedoseev, and D. Tsetserukou, “Mar- lander: A local path planning for drone swarms using multiagent deep reinforcement learning,” in Proc. 2024 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics (SMC) , 2024, pp. 2943–2948

    2024

  7. [13]

    Lander.ai: Drl-based autonomous drone landing on moving 3d surface in the presence of aerodynamic disturbances,

    R. Peter, L. Ratnabala, D. Aschu, A. Fedoseev, and D. Tsetserukou, “Lander.ai: Drl-based autonomous drone landing on moving 3d surface in the presence of aerodynamic disturbances,” pp. 295–300, 2024

    2024

  8. [14]

    Swarmhawk: Self-sustaining multi-agent system for landing on a moving platform through an agent supervision,

    A. Gupta, E. Dorzhieva, A. Baza, M. Alper, A. Fedoseev, and D. Tset- serukou, “Swarmhawk: Self-sustaining multi-agent system for landing on a moving platform through an agent supervision,” in Proc. 2022 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) , 2022, pp. 990–997

    2022

  9. [15]

    Swarmhive: Heterogeneous swarm of drones for robust autonomous landing on moving robot,

    A. Gupta, A. Baza, E. Dorzhieva, M. Alper, M. Makarova, S. Permi- nov, A. Fedoseev, and D. Tsetserukou, “Swarmhive: Heterogeneous swarm of drones for robust autonomous landing on moving robot,” in Proc. 2022 IEEE 95th V ehicular Technology Conference: (VTC2022- Spring), 2022, pp. 1–5

    2022

  10. [16]

    Nonlinear mpc for collision avoidance and control of uavs with dynamic obstacles,

    B. Lindqvist, S. S. Mansouri, A.-a. Agha-mohammadi, and G. Niko- lakopoulos, “Nonlinear mpc for collision avoidance and control of uavs with dynamic obstacles,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 6001–6008, 2020

    2020

  11. [17]

    Robust collision avoidance for multiple micro aerial vehicles using nonlinear model predictive control,

    M. Kamel, J. Alonso-Mora, R. Siegwart, and J. Nieto, “Robust collision avoidance for multiple micro aerial vehicles using nonlinear model predictive control,” in 2017 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) , 2017, pp. 236–243

    2017

  12. [19]

    Safe landing of drone using ai-based obstacle avoidance,

    S. Lee and Y . Kwon, “Safe landing of drone using ai-based obstacle avoidance,” International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, vol. 9, pp. 1495–1501, 11 2020

    2020

  13. [20]

    Control barrier functions in dynamic uavs for kinematic obstacle avoidance: A col- lision cone approach,

    M. Tayal, R. Singh, J. Keshavan, and S. Kolathaya, “Control barrier functions in dynamic uavs for kinematic obstacle avoidance: A col- lision cone approach,” in Proc. 2024 American Control Conference (ACC), 2024, pp. 3722–3727

    2024

  14. [21]

    Control barrier function- based predictive control for close proximity operation of uavs inside a tunnel,

    V . Mundheda, D. D. K, and H. Kandath, “Control barrier function- based predictive control for close proximity operation of uavs inside a tunnel,” 2023, arXiv:2303.16177

    2023 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Control barrier function- based quadratic programming for safeoperation of tethered uavs,

    S. O. Folorunsho, M. Ni, and W. R. Norris, “Control barrier function- based quadratic programming for safeoperation of tethered uavs,” 2025, arXiv:2502.08129

    2025 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Autonomous landing of quadrotor based on ground effect modelling,

    L. Danjun, Z. Yan, S. Zongying, and L. Geng, “Autonomous landing of quadrotor based on ground effect modelling,” in Proc. 2015 34th Chinese Control Conference (CCC) , 2015, pp. 5647–5652

    2015

  17. [24]

    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, pp. 1–36, Mar. 2019

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.