LTL Verification of Online Executions with Sensing in Bounded Situation Calculus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We look at agents reasoning about actions from a first-person perspective. The agent has a representation of world as situation calculus action theory. It can perform sensing actions to acquire information. The agent acts “online”, i.e., it performs an action only if it is certain that the action can be executed, and collects sensing results from the actual world. When the agent reasons about its future actions, it indeed considers that it is acting online; however only possible sensing values are available. The kind of reasoning about actions we consider for the agent is verifying a first-order (FO) variant (without quantification across situations) of linear time temporal logic (LTL) . We mainly focus on bounded action theories, where the number of facts that are true in any situation is bounded. The main results of this paper are: (i) possible sensing values can be based on consistency if the initial situation description is FO; (ii) for bounded action theories, progression over histories that include sensing results is always FO; (iii) for bounded theories, verifying our FO LTL against online executions with sensing is decidable.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".