Leveling the Playing Field: Carefully Comparing Classical and Learned Controllers for Quadrotor Trajectory Tracking

TL;DR

This paper establishes best practices for fairly comparing classical geometric controllers and reinforcement learning controllers for quadrotor trajectory tracking, revealing that previous claims of RL superiority are often overstated due to biased experimental setups.

Contribution

It develops a rigorous benchmarking protocol that corrects common biases, enabling accurate comparison between RL and classical controllers for quadrotor tasks.

Findings

Geometric controllers outperform RL in steady-state accuracy.

RL controllers excel in transient, agile maneuvers.

Proper benchmarking reduces perceived performance gaps.

Abstract

Learning-based control approaches like reinforcement learning (RL) have recently produced a slew of impressive results for tasks like quadrotor trajectory tracking and drone racing. Naturally, it is common to demonstrate the advantages of these new controllers against established methods like analytical controllers. We observe, however, that reliably comparing the performance of such very different classes of controllers is more complicated than might appear at first sight. As a case study, we take up the problem of agile tracking of an end-effector for a quadrotor with a fixed arm. We develop a set of best practices for synthesizing the best-in-class RL and geometric controllers (GC) for benchmarking. In the process, we resolve widespread RL-favoring biases in prior studies that provide asymmetric access to: (1) the task definition, in the form of an objective function, (2) representative datasets, for parameter optimization, and (3) feedforward information, describing the desired future trajectory. The resulting findings are the following: our improvements to the experimental protocol for comparing learned and classical controllers are critical, and each of the above asymmetries can yield misleading conclusions. Prior works have claimed that RL outperforms GC, but we find the gaps between the two controller classes are much smaller than previously published when accounting for symmetric comparisons. Geometric control achieves lower steady-state error than RL, while RL has better transient performance, resulting in GC performing better in relatively slow or less agile tasks, but RL performing better when greater agility is required. Finally, we open-source implementations of geometric and RL controllers for these aerial vehicles, implementing best practices for future development. Website and code is available at https://pratikkunapuli.github.io/rl-vs-gc/