MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Guaranteed Completion of Complex Tasks via Temporal Logic Trees and Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability

2024· article· en· W4407950102 on OpenAlexaff
Frank J. Jiang, Kaj Munhoz Arfvidsson, Chong He, Yichi Zhang, Karl Henrik Johansson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLogic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersVINNOVA
KeywordsReachabilityComputer scienceTemporal logicTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.517

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.239 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLogic, Reasoning, and KnowledgeFrench-language works237,207