MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2890771647 · doi:10.1109/icra.2018.8460769

Sampling-Based Motion Planning with μ-Calculus Specifications Without Steering

2018· article· en· W2890771647 on OpenAlexaff
Luc Larocque, Jun Liu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicFormal Methods in Verification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivenessMotion planningComputer scienceState spaceBellman equationKripke structureFunction (biology)Linear temporal logicReachabilityMathematical optimizationTemporal logicState (computer science)Control theory (sociology)Model checkingAlgorithmMathematicsTheoretical computer scienceControl (management)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While using temporal logic specifications with motion planning has been heavily researched, the reliance on having an available steering function is impractical and often suited only to basic problems with linear dynamics. This is because a steering function is a solution to an optimal two-point boundary value problem (OBVP); to our knowledge, it is nearly impossible to find an analytic solution to such problems in many cases. Addressing this issue, we have developed a means of combining the asymptotically optimal and probabilistically complete kinodynamic planning algorithm SST* with a local deterministic μ-calculus model checking procedure to create a motion planning algorithm with deterministic μ-calculus specifications that does not rely on a steering function. The procedure involves combining only the most pertinent information from multiple Kripke structures in order to create one abstracted Kripke structure storing the best paths to all possible proposition regions of the state-space. A linear-quadratic regulator (LQR) feedback control policy is then used to track these best paths, effectively connecting the trajectories found from multiple Kripke structures. Simulations demonstrate that it is possible to satisfy a complex liveness specification for infinitely often reaching specified regions of state-space using only forward propagation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFormal Methods in VerificationFrench-language works237,207