2015
DOI: 10.1177/0278364915587034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the minimal revision problem of specification automata

Abstract: As robots are being integrated into our daily lives, it becomes necessary to provide guarantees on their safe and provably correct operation. Such guarantees can be provided using automata theoretic task and mission planning where the requirements are expressed as temporal logic specifications. However, in real-life scenarios, it is to be expected that not all user task requirements can be realized by the robot. In such cases, the robot must provide feedback to the user on why it cannot accomplish a given task… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 31 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 44 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, we provide some guidelines on how to handle infeasibility of each layer's subproblem. In layer 1, if the LTL specification ϕ is infeasible, specification revision methods [12] can be considered to find a new specification satisfiable by S Π and as close to ϕ as possible. In layer 2, if regions of interest π i , π j ∈ Π cannot be connected in P \Obs, the first abstraction layer S Π needs to be updated with the physical constraints: (π i , π j ) / ∈ δ Π and (π j , π i ) / ∈ δ Π .…”
Section: B Hierarchical Decomposition Of An Ltl Control Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, we provide some guidelines on how to handle infeasibility of each layer's subproblem. In layer 1, if the LTL specification ϕ is infeasible, specification revision methods [12] can be considered to find a new specification satisfiable by S Π and as close to ϕ as possible. In layer 2, if regions of interest π i , π j ∈ Π cannot be connected in P \Obs, the first abstraction layer S Π needs to be updated with the physical constraints: (π i , π j ) / ∈ δ Π and (π j , π i ) / ∈ δ Π .…”
Section: B Hierarchical Decomposition Of An Ltl Control Problemmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Tumova et al [9] studied the problem of planning over a finite horizon with prioritized safety requirements, where the goal is to synthesize a least-violating control strategy. Kim et al [10] studied a similar problem for the case of infinite-horizon temporal logic planning, which seeks to revise an inconsistent specification, minimizing the cost of revision with respect to costs for atomic propositions provided by the specifier. Lahijanian et al [11] describe a method for computing optimal plans for co-safe LTL specifications, where optimality is again with respect to the cost of violating each atomic proposition, which is provided by the user.…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Planning over a finite horizon with prioritized safety requirements was studied in [27], where the goal is to synthesize a least-violating control strategy. A similar problem for infinite-horizon temporal logic planning was studied in [15], which seeks to revise an inconsistent specification, minimizing the cost of revision with respect to costs for atomic propositions provided by the specifier. [19] describes a method for computing optimal plans for co-safe LTL specifications, where optimality is again with respect to the cost of violating each atomic proposition, which is provided by the user.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%