Guaranteed Completion of Complex Tasks via Temporal Logic Trees and Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we present an approach for guaranteeing the completion of complex tasks with cyber-physical systems (CPS). Specifically, we leverage temporal logic trees constructed using Hamilton-Jacobi reachability analysis to (1) check for the existence of control policies that complete a specified task and (2) develop a computationally-efficient approach to synthesize the full set of control inputs the CPS can implement in real-time to ensure the task is completed. We show that, by checking the approximation directions of each state set in the temporal logic tree, we can check if the temporal logic tree suffers from the “leaking corner issue,” where the intersection of reachable sets yields an incorrect approximation. By ensuring a temporal logic tree has no leaking corners, we know the temporal logic tree correctly verifies the existence of control policies that satisfy the specified task. After confirming the existence of control policies, we show that we can leverage the value functions obtained through Hamilton-Jacobi reachability analysis to efficiently compute the set of control inputs the CPS can implement throughout the deployment time horizon to guarantee the completion of the specified task. Finally, we use a newly released Python toolbox to evaluate the presented approach on a simulated driving task.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".