MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2571456196 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1103.4342

MDP Optimal Control under Temporal Logic Constraints

2011· article· en· W2571456196 on OpenAlexaff
Xu Chu Ding, Stephen L. Smith, Călin Belta, Daniela Rus

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAir Force Office of Scientific ResearchArmy Research OfficeOffice of Naval ResearchMultidisciplinary University Research InitiativeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMarkov decision processTemporal logicDynamic programmingLinear temporal logicMathematical optimizationComputer scienceSet (abstract data type)Optimal controlPropositionControl (management)Process (computing)Partially observable Markov decision processMarkov processMathematicsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we develop a method to automatically generate a control policy for a dynamical system modeled as a Markov Decision Process (MDP). The control specification is given as a Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formula over a set of propositions defined on the states of the MDP. We synthesize a control policy such that the MDP satisfies the given specification almost surely, if such a policy exists. In addition, we designate an "optimizing proposition" to be repeatedly satisfied, and we formulate a novel optimization criterion in terms of minimizing the expected cost in between satisfactions of this proposition. We propose a sufficient condition for a policy to be optimal, and develop a dynamic programming algorithm that synthesizes a policy that is optimal under some conditions, and sub-optimal otherwise. This problem is motivated by robotic applications requiring persistent tasks, such as environmental monitoring or data gathering, to be performed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.159
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.049 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207