Data-Driven System Identification of Quadrotors Subject to Motor Delays

TL;DR

This work introduces a data-driven method to identify a quadrotor’s inertia parameters, thrust curves, torque coefficients, and first-order motor delay purely based on proprioceptive data and derives a Maximum A Posteriori (MAP)-based method to estimate the latent time constant.

Abstract

Recently non-linear control methods like Model Predictive Control (MPC) and Reinforcement Learning (RL) have attracted increased interest in the quadrotor control community. In contrast to classic control methods like cascaded PID controllers, MPC and RL heavily rely on an accurate model of the system dynamics. The process of quadrotor system identification is notoriously tedious and is often pursued with additional equipment like a thrust stand. Furthermore, low-level details like motor delays which are crucial for accurate end-to-end control are often neglected. In this work, we introduce a data-driven method to identify a quadrotor's inertia parameters, thrust curves, torque coefficients, and first-order motor delay purely based on proprioceptive data. The estimation of the motor delay is particularly challenging as usually, the RPMs can not be measured. We derive a Maximum A Posteriori (MAP)-based method to estimate the latent time constant. Our approach only requires about a minute of flying data that can be collected without any additional equipment and usually consists of three simple maneuvers. Experimental results demonstrate the ability of our method to accurately recover the parameters of multiple quadrotors. It also facilitates the deployment of RL-based, end-to-end quadrotor control of a large quadrotor under harsh, outdoor conditions.

Figures (12)

• Figure 1: Data from Table \ref{['table:inertia_data']}.
• Figure 2: Crazyflie: estimating $\textcolor{unknown}{T_m}$.
• Figure 3: Crazyflie: resulting thrust-curve.
• Figure 4: Crazyflie: comparison of the resulting thrust curves with foerster2015systemidentificationofthecrazyflie, luis2016design, greiff2017modelling, and nguyen2023crazyflie approaches respectively.
• Figure 5: Crazyflie: comparing not modeling the motor delay vs modeling it (same data).