Tighter Safety Tubes for Drones: Zonotopes on Lie Groups Replace Conservative Ellipsoids

Provably tight reachability tubes for trajectory tracking on Lie groups, validated in real quadrotor flights. Beats the ellipsoid method where it fails entirely.

Imagine you're drawing a safety margin around a pen stroke on paper. The conservative approach draws one big circle around the entire stroke — guaranteed to contain it, but wastes enormous space. A smarter approach draws a snug, variable-width corridor that follows the pen's actual path. This paper does the second thing, but for drones tracking trajectories in 3D space where the math of rotation lives on curved manifolds (Lie groups), not flat Euclidean space. The committed claim: by exploiting the group-affine structure of aerial vehicle error dynamics, you can propagate zonotopes — a specific class of convex polytopes — through the linear part of the error dynamics in Lie algebra coordinates and enclose the nonlinear Jacobian-dependent disturbance effects in closed form. The result is continuous-time reachability tubes that are provably valid AND substantially tighter than ellipsoidal methods. Where the ellipsoid method yields no valid bound at all under larger disturbances, these tubes remain valid. The architecture sits in the family of set-based reachability analysis, specifically zonotopic propagation applied to group-affine systems on matrix Lie groups (SE(2), SE(3), etc.). The key structural insight is that for group-affine systems receiving reference inputs, the tracking error dynamics become linear in Lie algebra coordinates. The nonlinearity hides in the inverse right Jacobian, which multiplies the disturbance and control input. Rather than linearizing this away, the authors enclose its effect analytically, keeping the bound tight. When unmatched nonlinear terms appear (some error components lack control input), they introduce hybrid coordinates — splitting the state into a Lie group part and a vector part — so the controller can cancel every nonlinear term not involving the disturbance. The ladder comparison is explicit: the primary baseline is the invariant ellipsoid method from Bayer et al. (2023), which computes a single ellipsoidal bound for the entire trajectory. On a planar aircraft (SE(2)) and a fully actuated multirotor (SE(3)), the zonotopic tubes are visibly tighter in simulation. The real validation comes from quadrotor flight experiments: every measured attitude error falls inside the zonotopic tube. Under larger disturbances with the same feedback gain, the ellipsoid method fails to produce any valid ellipsoid at all, while the zonotopic tubes hold. Interval-based methods are also cited as conservative baselines. The paper does not compare against more recent optimization-based reachability tools (e.g., CORA's zonotope methods for flat systems), which leaves a gap. Integrity is solid for a controls paper. The validation pipeline includes mathematical proofs of containment (Theorems for continuous-time inclusion), numerical simulations on two vehicle models, and real hardware experiments on a quadrotor. The quadrotor experiments use a motion capture system for ground truth. The failure mode of the ellipsoid baseline under larger disturbances is an honest stress test, not a cherry-picked scenario. However, there is no code release mentioned, no pre-registration (standard for this field), and the real experiments test only attitude tracking, not full position-and-attitude tubes. The milestone question is concrete: this paper demonstrates tight tubes for SE(2) and SE(3) systems with bounded disturbances. The next unlock is applying this to full 6-DOF trajectory planning in cluttered environments where the tube width directly determines whether a planned path is certifiably collision-free. The gap is integrating these tubes into a real-time motion planner that re-plans when the tube touches an obstacle — something the tighter tubes make feasible where ellipsoids would declare too many paths unsafe. The obvious experiment not run: closing the loop with an online planner. The tubes are computed offline for a given reference trajectory. The natural next step is feeding tube width into a receding-horizon planner that adjusts the trajectory when the tube approaches obstacles. The honest read is (c) — they're saving it for the next paper. The theoretical and experimental machinery is clearly set up for this extension, and the comparison against ellipsoids is partly motivated by showing that tighter tubes enable denser planning. A second gap: testing on vehicles with significant model uncertainty beyond additive disturbances.