Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 37 references

Avian-Inspired High-Precision Tracking Control for Aerial Manipulators

T0 review · 4 major / 7 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 The paper claims an aerial manipulator can stabilize its end effector to millimeter-level position and sub-degree attitude, like bird head stabilization, using an RNE-based coupling estimator, a two-mode coordinated controller, and an…

desk verdict Solid engineering simulation study with a genuinely new avian-inspired arm sizing rule; the mm-level tracking claim needs hardware or model-mismatch evidence before it becomes load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10966 v1 pith:DQW3ZORR submitted 2024-11-17 cs.RO

Mengyu Ji , Jiahao Shen , Huazi Cao , Shiyu Zhao This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords aerialmanipulatorsavian-inspireddesignRecursiveNewton-Eulerend-effectorposestabilizationcoordinatedcontroldynamiccouplingestimationnonlinearflight
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

An aerial manipulator, a quadcopter with a five-degree-of-freedom arm, is claimed to be able to freeze its end effector in space while its base is shoved around, the robot analog of a bird's head stabilization. The paper proposes three linked ingredients: sizing the arm from the osprey's body-width-to-neck-length ratio of 1.7, so a 0.93 m wheelbase gets a 0.55 m arm; a flight controller that cancels the arm's reaction forces and torques using a Recursive Newton-Euler estimator; and a two-mode coordinated controller that lets the arm compensate for the quadcopter's residual position and attitude errors. In the numerical experiments, this combination keeps the end effector within about 0.5 cm mean position error on trajectory tracking, and within 4 mm position error and about 1 degree attitude error when the quadcopter is hit by 4 N sinusoidal or step disturbances, even though the base itself moves up to 19 cm. If the simulations transfer to hardware, aerial manipulation would reach the precision regime needed for contact inspection, peg-in-hole insertion, and pick-and-place from a moving platform.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the RNE-based dynamic coupling estimator. It runs the arm's kinematic model forward from the quadcopter's measured acceleration to propagate each link's angular and linear acceleration, then runs a backward force-balance pass to recover the force $f_D$ and torque $\tau_D$ that the arm exerts on the quadcopter; injecting these into the position and attitude control laws turns the arm from a disturbance into a known load. The second mechanism is the coordinated controller's two modes: hover mode keeps the base stationary and computes desired joint angles with analytical inverse kinematics, while cooperation mode repositions the base so the end effector stays near workspace center and uses the Jacobian to set desired joint velocities. The kinematic amplification analysis, through the identity $p_E = p_B + R_B p_E^B$, is what motivates the arm compensation: base attitude errors get magnified at the end effector, so the arm must cancel them rather than relying on the base controller alone.

What would settle it

Build the 0.93 m wheelbase and 0.55 m arm system with the same controllers, apply a known 4 N sinusoidal force at the base, and measure the end effector with motion capture: if the end-effector position error exceeds a few millimeters or the attitude exceeds about one degree while the base moves roughly 17 cm, the central claim is refuted. A faster simulation check is to perturb the RNE estimator's model parameters by 10 to 20 percent and look for error growth beyond the claimed bounds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the bottleneck for aerial manipulation is not the arm but the coupling between base and arm, and that this coupling can be estimated and cancelled with model-based structure rather than treated as a disturbance. It states that with the proposed RNE-based nonlinear flight controller and dual-mode coordination, the end-effector pose can be stabilized like an avian head: bounded position error proportional to estimation and disturbance bounds, and bounded attitude error, with simulation-level errors of millimeters and under a degree. The design rule that makes the system work is morphological: the ratio of the osprey's body width to neck length fixes the quadcopter wheelbase to arm length ratio at 1.7, giving the arm enough reach to correct base errors while keeping the vehicle agile. The paper's three experiments show mean end-effector position error of 0.50 cm on a circular trajectory, 1.5 to 2.7 cm on large complex paths without velocity commands, and maximum 0.4 cm position and 1.44 degree attitude error on direct base disturbances.

Load-bearing premise

Every precision claim comes from simulations in which the controller's rigid-body model is also the plant's model, so the millimeter and degree numbers assume real hardware behaves like that same model with no unmodeled flexibility, lag, or parameter mismatch, and that separately stabilizing the flight loop and the arm loop stabilizes their interconnection.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same control framework can stabilize an end effector against at least two disturbance classes, sinusoidal forces and step forces up to 4 N, with base excursions of 17 to 19 cm reduced to 0.4 to 1 cm at the end effector.
  • The proposed flight controller is claimed to cut mean tracking error by 81%, 86%, 75%, and 70% relative to no-coupling compensation, inverse-dynamic control, PID, and geometric control in the circular-trajectory test.
  • Cooperation mode lets a quadcopter and arm jointly track large complex curves, including a lemniscate, a duck, a snail, and lettering, with mean position error of 1.5 to 2.7 cm and mean attitude error near 0.8 degrees even when desired velocities are not provided.
  • The osprey ratio gives a design rule for future aerial manipulators: set wheelbase to arm total length around 1.7, then iterate link lengths to cover a hemispherical workspace.
  • The RNE estimator, by making dynamic coupling a known load in the flight controller, brings the precision of a decoupled control architecture close to that of full-body methods that require a precise nonlinear model.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A hardware implementation of the same disturbance experiments would test whether unmodeled effects such as joint flexibility, propeller lag, and parameter mismatch stay within the simulated error budget; the current evidence is entirely numerical.
  • The bird-ratio design rule is derived from osprey proportions, and nothing in the analysis says the same ratio optimizes other task spaces; a testable extension is to map task reach and agility requirements to a range of ratios across bird species.
  • The stability proof separates the base loop and the arm loop and concludes whole-system stability from the two parts, so an interconnection-based analysis or a full-system Lyapunov function is the natural next check.
  • Because the end-effector error identity holds for any manipulator mounted on an underactuated flying base, the coordinated compensation strategy could be adapted to other aerial vehicle designs beyond the quadcopter-plus-arm layout used here.
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 / 7 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an avian-inspired framework for aerial manipulators, consisting of (i) a mechanical design rule in which the osprey's body-width-to-neck-length ratio of 1.7 sets the ratio of the quadcopter wheelbase to the total robotic-arm length, (ii) a Recursive Newton-Euler (RNE) based estimator of the dynamic coupling force/torque between the quadcopter and the arm, (iii) a nonlinear position and attitude flight controller for the quadcopter, (iv) a computed-torque control law for the five-DoF arm, and (v) a two-mode coordinated controller (hover mode and cooperation mode) that allocates motion between the base and the arm. The claims are validated in three numerical experiments: disturbance rejection during circular end-effector tracking, tracking of four large complex trajectories, and end-effector pose stabilization under sinusoidal and step force disturbances on the quadcopter. The paper's central claim is that the end-effector position error reaches millimeter-level accuracy and the attitude error remains within 1 degree even when the quadcopter is disturbed.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would make a useful contribution to aerial manipulation: the RNE-based coupling estimator is a sensible use of the known arm model, the dual-mode coordinated control addresses a real limitation of fixed-gain approaches, and the three simulation experiments are clearly described, including explicit gain values, noise levels, and a comparison against four baseline controllers. The avian-morphology design rule is an interesting heuristic, and the paper is careful in several places to acknowledge limitations, such as the absence of aggressive manipulation and the lack of a dynamic avian head-stabilization model. However, the current evidence does not support the headline precision claims: all validation is performed in a simulation whose plant and RNE estimator are based on the same rigid-body model, the stability proofs treat the position and attitude loops separately without a rigorous interconnection argument, and the reported numbers in the step-disturbance experiment are weaker than the abstract states. The work is therefore a reasonable candidate for a major revision rather than acceptance in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Section 6.4] The headline claim that 'the position error of the end-effector achieves millimeter-level accuracy, and the attitude error remains within 1 degree' is not supported by the reported experimental data. In the step-disturbance experiment (Section 6.4, Fig. 8c), the maximum end-effector position error is 0.01 m, i.e., 1 cm, which is not millimeter-level, and the maximum attitude error in alpha is 1.44 degrees, which exceeds 1 degree. Only the mean error over the simulation is millimeter-level, as the conclusion in Section 7 correctly states. The abstract and Section 6.4 should be reworded to distinguish mean from maximum errors and to avoid claiming that the stricter bounds hold in all tested cases.
  2. [Sections 4.2, 4.3, and 5.1] The stability analysis does not establish whole-system stability of the coupled quadcopter-arm closed loop. Theorem 1 analyzes the position loop with the attitude loop effectively idealized: the commanded force vector f in Eq. (15) is used as if it were directly applied in the translational dynamics, whereas Eq. (4) contains the actual thrust term -f R_B e3 with the rotation matrix R_B, whose direction is only commanded through Eq. (19). Theorem 2 analyzes the attitude loop while omitting the position-loop coupling. Section 5.1 then concludes that the entire system is stable because each subsystem is stable. This is not a valid interconnection argument for a nonlinear coupled system without an ISS, small-gain, or similar composition proof. The authors should either provide a rigorous coupled stability analysis or explicitly state and justify the time-scale separation assumption.
  3. [Sections 4.1 and 6.1] The millimeter-level precision claim is established only in a simulation whose plant and the RNE estimator are generated from the same rigid-body model. In Section 6.1, the only uncertainty added is measurement noise on accelerations, positions, attitudes, and joint variables; the simulated plant shares exactly the same link masses, inertias, kinematic parameters, and acceleration model as the estimator in Section 4.1. No actuator dynamics, rotor lag, joint flexibility, friction, sensor latency, or parameter error is included. As a result, the 0.5 cm mean tracking error and the 0.004 m maximum error in Section 6.4 are statements about a self-consistent model, not about a physical system. The authors should either add robustness experiments with model mismatch and actuator dynamics, or significantly temper the claim to the nominal simulation setting.
  4. [Section 3.1 and Fig. 4] The avian-morphology design rule is presented as a contribution ('This ratio is set at 1.7'), but no evidence is provided that the osprey body-width-to-neck-length ratio yields better tracking precision than other plausible ratios or than conventional engineering sizing heuristics. The ratio is one possible design choice; the paper does not compare designs with different ratios, nor does it show that the resulting arm length improves the system's tracking performance. This claim should be reframed as a design heuristic, or supported by a sensitivity study.
minor comments (7)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'This paper studies the tracking control problem for aerial manipulators' appears twice in the abstract and should be removed from the second occurrence.
  2. [Equation (15) and Eq. (19)] The notation for f is inconsistent: in Eq. (4), f is a scalar thrust magnitude, while in Eq. (15) f is defined as a vector and Eq. (19) then writes f = ||f||. Using a distinct symbol such as F for the commanded force vector would clarify the derivation and the proof of Theorem 1.
  3. [Equation (24)] In the proof of Theorem 2, the denominator in the expression for dWa/dt should be sqrt(2)||ra||, not sqrt(2)||rp||, since ra is the attitude-error state vector.
  4. [Equation (25)] The gain matrices KM,p and KM,v are stated to be in R^{3x3}, but q is in R^5 and the error dynamics are five-dimensional; these matrices should be R^{5x5}.
  5. [Reference [30]] The publisher of Craig, Introduction to Robotics, should be 'Pearson', not 'Person'.
  6. [Figure 3] The labels 'Task 1' and 'Task 2' in Fig. 3 are not explained in the caption or in the text; the flow from the coordinated controller to the robotic-arm controller should be described explicitly.
  7. [Section 5.2, Eq. (26)] The transformation matrix T contains tan(beta), so the formulation is singular at beta = ±90 degrees; the paper should state the valid operating range or explain why the singularity is not reached in the presented experiments.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation chain: neither the reported precision nor the design rule reduces to a fitted input or to a load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The paper's claimed outputs (millimeter-level end-effector errors, sub-degree attitude errors, the 1.7 size ratio) are not obtained by fitting parameters to those outputs. The osprey ratio is an independently measured morphological input (Section 3.1), the control gains are chosen directly (Section 6.1), and Theorems 1 and 2 are Lyapunov bounds with explicit assumptions on estimation and disturbance bounds. The coordinated-control laws follow from the kinematic identities (1)-(3) and (6)-(7), and the RNE estimator is a standard Newton-Euler recursion. The self-citations [3,12,16] provide background (a dynamics model, a predictive-inverse-kinematics predecessor, and an application context) and do not carry the stability or precision claim. The main weakness is external validity, not circularity: the numerical plant and the RNE estimator use the same rigid-body model, so the simulated 'real' coupling values do not test model mismatch, and Section 6.4's step-disturbance maximum position error is 1 cm with millimeter-level accuracy only in the mean; these are limitations of the evidence, not reductions of the result to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on hand-chosen gains, a species-selected ratio, unlisted link parameters, and an assumed rigid-body model shared by controller and simulator. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Control gains Kp, Kv, KPhi, Komega, KM,p, KM,v = Kp=diag(2.2,2.2,2.2), Kv=diag(2,2,2), KPhi=diag(24,24,24), Komega=diag(16,16,16), KM,p=KM,v=diag(100,100,100)
    Chosen by hand in Section 6.1; the reported mm-level errors depend on these values and no tuning or robustness analysis is provided.
  • Avian body-width-to-neck-length ratio = 1.7 (osprey)
    Selected from one species and used to set arm length to 0.55 m for a 0.93 m wheelbase (Section 3.1); no optimization or sensitivity study.
  • Arm link lengths = not tabulated
    Iteratively adjusted to fill a 0.5 m hemisphere workspace (Section 3.1), but exact lengths and inertias are not given numerically, making reproduction hard.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rigid-body dynamics model (4) for quadcopter with lumped arm mass and coupling force/torque
    Used for controller design and as the simulated plant; Section 2.2.
  • domain assumption RNE estimator assumes exact knowledge of the dynamics model including link inertias and masses
    Section 4.1; under model mismatch the estimation error bound can grow.
  • domain assumption Bounded estimation error and bounded external disturbance, as assumed in Theorems 1 and 2
    Sections 4.2 and 4.3; stability result is only ultimate boundedness with bound proportional to these unknown bounds.
  • domain assumption Position and attitude loops can be treated as decoupled in the stability proof
    Theorems 1 and 2 ignore the fact that the position controller's virtual force is realized through attitude; no cascade or interconnection analysis is given.
  • ad hoc to paper Avian body width to neck length ratio is a valid design analog for quadcopter wheelbase to arm length
    Section 3.1; the transfer from bird morphology to robot dimensions is asserted without biomechanical justification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Avian-Inspired High-Precision Tracking Control for Aerial Manipulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQW3ZORR

@misc{pith2026241110966,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Avian-Inspired High-Precision Tracking Control for Aerial Manipulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQW3ZORR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10966}
}
read the original abstract

Aerial manipulators, composed of multirotors and robotic arms, have a structure and function highly reminiscent of avian species. This paper studies the tracking control problem for aerial manipulators. This paper studies the tracking control problem for aerial manipulators. We propose an avian-inspired aerial manipulation system, which includes an avian-inspired robotic arm design, a Recursive Newton-Euler (RNE) method-based nonlinear flight controller, and a coordinated controller with two modes. Compared to existing methods, our proposed approach offers several attractive features. First, the morphological characteristics of avian species are used to determine the size proportion of the multirotor and the robotic arm in the aerial manipulator. Second, the dynamic coupling of the aerial manipulator is addressed by the RNE-based flight controller and a dual-mode coordinated controller. Specifically, under our proposed algorithm, the aerial manipulator can stabilize the end-effector's pose, similar to avian head stabilization. The proposed approach is verified through three numerical experiments. The results show that even when the quadcopter is disturbed by different forces, the position error of the end-effector achieves millimeter-level accuracy, and the attitude error remains within 1 degree. The limitation of this work is not considering aggressive manipulation like that seen in birds. Addressing this through future studies that explore real-world experiments will be a key direction for research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [31]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 40, 1242–1260 (2024) https://doi

    Wang, M., Chen, Z., Guo, K., Yu, X., Zhang, Y., Guo, L., Wang, W.: Millimeter- level pick and peg-in-hole task achieved by aerial manipulator. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 40, 1242–1260 (2024) https://doi. org/10.1109/TRO.2023.3338956

    arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems (IROS), Hamburg, Germany, pp

    Jimenez-Cano, A., Braga, J., Heredia, G., Ollero, A.: Aerial manipulator for structure inspection by contact from the underside. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Sys- tems (IROS), Hamburg, Germany, pp. 1879– 1884 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS. 2015.7353623

    arXiv 2015

  3. [2]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(3), 709–722 (2020) https://doi

    Bodie, K., Brunner, M., Pantic, M., Walser, S., Pf¨ andler, P., Angst, U., Siegwart, R., Nieto, J.: Active interaction force control for contact-based inspection with a fully actu- ated aerial vehicle. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 37(3), 709–722 (2020) https://doi. org/10.1109/TRO.2020.3036623

    arXiv 2020

  4. [3]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 1–18 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Cao, H., Shen, J., Liu, C., Zhu, B., Zhao, S.: Motion planning for aerial pick-and-place with geometric feasibility constraints. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, 1–18 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASE.2024.3382296

    arXiv 2024

  5. [4]

    Engineer- ing 6(1), 77–88 (2020) https://doi.org/10

    Ramon-Soria, P., Arrue, B.C., Ollero, A.: Grasp planning and visual servoing for an outdoors aerial dual manipulator. Engineer- ing 6(1), 77–88 (2020) https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.eng.2019.11.003

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    In: Proceed- ings of 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, Korea (South), pp

    Steich, K., Kamel, M., Beardsley, P., Obrist, M.K., Siegwart, R., Lachat, T.: Tree cavity inspection using aerial robots. In: Proceed- ings of 2016 IEEE/RSJ International Con- ference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Daejeon, Korea (South), pp. 4856– 4862 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/IROS. 2016.7759713

    arXiv 2016

  7. [6]

    : Aerial additive manufacturing with multiple autonomous robots

    Zhang, K., Chermprayong, P., Xiao, F., Tzoumanikas, D., Dams, B., Kay, S., Kocer, B.B., Burns, A., Orr, L., Alhinai, T., et al. : Aerial additive manufacturing with multiple autonomous robots. Nature 609(7928), 709–717 (2022) https://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41586-024-07030-x

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07030-x 2022

  8. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38(1), 626–645 (2021) https://doi

    Ollero, A., Tognon, M., Suarez, A., Lee, D., Franchi, A.: Past, present, and future of aerial robotic manipulators. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38(1), 626–645 (2021) https://doi. org/10.1109/TRO.2021.3084395 16

    arXiv 2021

Show all 37 references
  1. [8]

    Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 739173 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.739173

    Meng, J., Buzzatto, J., Liu, Y., Liarokapis, M.: On aerial robots with grasping and perch- ing capabilities: A comprehensive review. Frontiers in Robotics and AI8, 739173 (2022) https://doi.org/10.3389/frobt.2021.739173

    2022

  2. [9]

    In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), Seattle, Washing- ton, USA, pp

    Ruggiero, F., Trujillo, M.A., Cano, R., Ascorbe, H., Viguria, A., Per´ ez, C., Lippiello, V., Ollero, A., Siciliano, B.: A multilayer control for multirotor UA Vs equipped with a servo robot arm. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation ...

    2015

  3. [10]

    Chi- nese Journal of Aeronautics 32(1), 200–214 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.05

    Xilun, D., Pin, G., Kun, X., Yushu, Y.: A review of aerial manipulation of small-scale rotorcraft unmanned robotic systems. Chi- nese Journal of Aeronautics 32(1), 200–214 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2018.05. 012

    2019 doi

  4. [11]

    Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 9(2), 025010 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/9/2/025010

    Thomas, J., Loianno, G., Polin, J., Sreenath, K., Kumar, V.: Toward autonomous avian-inspired grasping for micro aerial vehicles. Bioinspiration & Biomimetics 9(2), 025010 (2014) https: //doi.org/10.1088/1748-3182/9/2/025010

    2014 doi

  5. [12]

    IEEE Transac- tions on Automation Science and Engineering 21(2), 2139–2155 (2024) https://doi.org/10

    Cao, H., Li, Y., Liu, C., Zhao, S.: ESO- based robust and high-precision tracking con- trol for aerial manipulation. IEEE Transac- tions on Automation Science and Engineering 21(2), 2139–2155 (2024) https://doi.org/10. 1109/TASE.2023.3260874

    2024

  6. [13]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(4), 8165– 8172 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA

    Bodie, K., Tognon, M., Siegwart, R.: Dynamic end effector tracking with an omni- directional parallel aerial manipulator. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(4), 8165– 8172 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA. 2021.3101864

    2021

  7. [14]

    IEEE Transactions on Industrial Elec- tronics 67(11), 9515–9525 (2019) https://doi

    Zhang, G., He, Y., Dai, B., Gu, F., Han, J., Liu, G.: Robust control of an aerial manipu- lator based on a variable inertia parameters model. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Elec- tronics 67(11), 9515–9525 (2019) https://doi. org/10.1109/TIE.2019.2956414

    2019

  8. [15]

    Autonomous Robots 41, 1203–1220 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10514-016-9590-0

    Baizid, K., Giglio, G., Pierri, F., Trujillo, M.A., Antonelli, G., Caccavale, F., Viguria, A., Chiaverini, S., Ollero, A.: Behavioral control of unmanned aerial vehicle manip- ulator systems. Autonomous Robots 41, 1203–1220 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10514-016-9590-0

    2017

  9. [16]

    In: Proceedings of 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA), Singapore, pp

    Cao, H., Zhao, S.: Predictive damped inverse kinematics for redundant and underactu- ated robotic systems. In: Proceedings of 2020 IEEE 16th International Conference on Control & Automation (ICCA), Singapore, pp. 348–353 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICCA51439.2020.9264372

    2020

  10. [18]

    In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Technologies for Prac- tical Robot Applications (TePRA), London, UK, pp

    Danko, T.W., Chaney, K.P., Oh, P.Y.: A parallel manipulator for mobile manipulating uavs. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Technologies for Prac- tical Robot Applications (TePRA), London, UK, pp. 1–6 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ TePRA.2015.7219682

    2015

  11. [20]

    In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Tokyo, Japan, pp

    Huber, F., Kondak, K., Krieger, K., Som- mer, D., Schwarzbach, M., Laiacker, M., Kossyk, I., Parusel, S., Haddadin, S., Albu- Sch¨ affer, A.: First analysis and experiments in aerial manipulation using fully actuated redundant robot arm. In: Proceedings of 2013 IEEE/RSJ Intern...

    2013

  12. [21]

    In: Proceedings of 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Air- craft Systems (ICUAS), Miami, Florida, USA, pp

    Suarez, A., Jimenez-Cano, A., Vega, V., Heredia, G., Rodriguez-Casta˜ no, A., Ollero, 17 A.: Lightweight and human-size dual arm aerial manipulator. In: Proceedings of 2017 International Conference on Unmanned Air- craft Systems (ICUAS), Miami, Florida, USA, pp. 1778–1784 (201...

    2017

  13. [22]

    Science Robotics 4(28), 6637 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/scirobotics.aau6637

    Hang, K., Lyu, X., Song, H., Stork, J.A., Dol- lar, A.M., Kragic, D., Zhang, F.: Perching and resting-a paradigm for UA V maneuver- ing with modularized landing gears. Science Robotics 4(28), 6637 (2019) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/scirobotics.aau6637

    2019 doi

  14. [23]

    Science Robotics 6(61), 7562 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/scirobotics.abj7562

    Roderick, W.R., Cutkosky, M.R., Lentink, D.: Bird-inspired dynamic grasping and perching in arboreal environments. Science Robotics 6(61), 7562 (2021) https://doi.org/ 10.1126/scirobotics.abj7562

    2021 doi

  15. [24]

    Nature 255(5503), 67–69 (1975) https://doi.org/10

    Friedman, M.B.: Visual control of head movements during avian locomotion. Nature 255(5503), 67–69 (1975) https://doi.org/10. 1038/255067a0

    1975

  16. [25]

    Current Biology 19(8), 315–316 (2009) https://doi

    Frost, B.J.: Bird head stabilization. Current Biology 19(8), 315–316 (2009) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cub.2009.02.002

    2009 doi

  17. [26]

    Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187, 423–432 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590100210

    Katzir, G., Schechtman, E., Carmi, N., Weihs, D.: Head stabilization in herons. Journal of Comparative Physiology A 187, 423–432 (2001) https://doi.org/10.1007/s003590100210

    2001 doi

  18. [27]

    Robotica 36(10), 1527– 1550 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0263574718000553

    Pierri, F., Muscio, G., Caccavale, F.: An adaptive hierarchical control for aerial manipulators. Robotica 36(10), 1527– 1550 (2018) https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0263574718000553

    2018

  19. [28]

    IF AC Proceedings Volumes 46(30), 303–309 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3182/ 20131120-3-FR-4045.00053

    Kannan, S., Olivares-Mendez, M.A., Voos, H.: Modeling and control of aerial manipulation vehicle with visual sen- sor*. IF AC Proceedings Volumes 46(30), 303–309 (2013) https://doi.org/10.3182/ 20131120-3-FR-4045.00053 . 2nd IF AC Workshop on Research, Education and Developmen...

    2013

  20. [29]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(2), 3483– 3490 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA

    Sun, Y., Jing, Z., Dong, P., Huang, J., Chen, W., Leung, H.: A switchable unmanned aerial manipulator system for window-cleaning robot installation. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6(2), 3483– 3490 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1109/LRA. 2021.3062795

    2021

  21. [30]

    Person, London (2017)

    Craig, J.J.: Introduction to Robotics: Mechanics and Control (Fourth Edition). Person, London (2017)

    2017

  22. [32]

    Khalil, H.K.: Nonlinear Systems (Third Edi- tion) vol. 3. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs (2002)

    2002

  23. [33]

    CRC press, Boca Raton (2017)

    Murray, R.M., Li, Z., Sastry, S.S.: A Math- ematical Introduction to Robotic Manipula- tion. CRC press, Boca Raton (2017)

    2017

  24. [34]

    Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society 12 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015

    Pete, A., Kress, D., Dimitrov, M., Lentink, D.: The role of passive avian head stabi- lization in flapping flight. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface / the Royal Society 12 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2015. 0508

    2015 doi

  25. [35]

    In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Chicago, Illinois, USA, pp

    Heredia, G., Jimenez-Cano, A., Sanchez, I., Llorente, D., Vega, V., Braga, J., Acosta, J., Ollero, A.: Control of a multirotor outdoor aerial manipulator. In: Proceedings of 2014 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intel- ligent Robots and Systems (IROS), Chicago, Illinois, U...

    2014

  26. [36]

    ArXiv abs/2006.02116 (2020) https://doi.org/10

    Tzoumanikas, D., Graule, F., Yan, Q., Shah, D., Popovic, M., Leutenegger, S.: Aerial manipulation using hybrid force and posi- tion nmpc applied to aerial writing. ArXiv abs/2006.02116 (2020) https://doi.org/10. 48550/arXiv.2006.02116

    2020 doi arXiv

  27. [37]

    In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), Seattle, Washington, USA, pp

    Kim, S., Seo, H., Kim, H.J.: Operating an 18 unknown drawer using an aerial manipula- tor. In: Proceedings of 2015 IEEE Interna- tional Conference on Robotics and Automa- tion (ICRA), Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 5503–5508 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1109/ ICRA.2015.7139968

    2015

  28. [38]

    Information Sciences 501, 436–459 (2019) https://doi

    Meza-S´ anchez, M., Clemente, E., Rodr ´ ıguez- Li˜ n´ an, M., Olague, G.: Synthetic-analytic behavior-based control framework: Con- straining velocity in tracking for nonholo- nomic wheeled mobile robots. Information Sciences 501, 436–459 (2019) https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ins...

    2019 doi

  29. [39]

    ArXiv abs/2107.03722 (2021) 19

    Mart’i-Saumell, J., Sol` a, J., Santamaria- Navarro, A., Andrade-Cetto, J.: Full-body torque-level non-linear model predictive control for aerial manipulation. ArXiv abs/2107.03722 (2021) 19

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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