Optimal path planning for surveillance with temporal-logic constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we present a method for automatically generating optimal robot paths satisfying high-level mission specifications. The motion of the robot in the environment is modeled as a weighted transition system. The mission is specified by an arbitrary linear temporal-logic (LTL) formula over propositions satisfied at the regions of a partitioned environment. The mission specification contains an optimizing proposition, which must be repeatedly satisfied. The cost function that we seek to minimize is the maximum time between satisfying instances of the optimizing proposition. For every environment model, and for every formula, our method computes a robot path that minimizes the cost function. The problem is motivated by applications in robotic monitoring and data-gathering. In this setting, the optimizing proposition is satisfied at all locations where data can be uploaded, and the LTL formula specifies a complex data-collection mission. Our method utilizes Büchi automata to produce an automaton (which can be thought of as a graph) whose runs satisfy the temporal-logic specification. We then present a graph algorithm that computes a run corresponding to the optimal robot path. We present an implementation for a robot performing data collection in a road-network platform.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".