Synthesis with Mandatory Stop Actions

We study the impact of the need for the agent to obligatorily instruct the action stop in her strategies. More specifically we consider synthesis (i.e., planning) for LTLf goals under LTL environment specifications in the case the agent must mandatorily stop at a certain point. We show that this obligation makes it impossible to exploit the liveness part of the LTL environment specifications to achieve her goal, effectively reducing the environment specifications to their safety part only. This has a deep impact on the efficiency of solving the synthesis, which can sidestep handling Buchi determinization associated to LTL synthesis, in favor of finite-state automata manipulation as in LTLf synthesis. Next, we add to the agent goal, expressed in LTLf, a safety goal, expressed in LTL. Safety goals must hold forever, even when the agent stops, since the environment can still continue its evolution. Hence the agent, before stopping, must ensure that her safety goal will be maintained even after she stops. To do synthesis in this case, we devise an effective approach that mixes a synthesis technique based on finite-state automata (as in the case of LTLf goals) and model-checking of nondeterministic Buchi automata. In this way, again, we sidestep Buchi automata determinization, hence getting a synthesis technique that is intrinsically simpler than standard LTL synthesis.

[1]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Planning under LTL Environment Specifications , 2019, ICAPS.

[2]  Alberto Camacho,et al.  Non-Deterministic Planning with Temporally Extended Goals: LTL over Finite and Infinite Traces , 2017, AAAI.

[3]  Alberto Camacho,et al.  Finite LTL Synthesis with Environment Assumptions and Quality Measures , 2018, KR.

[4]  Moshe Y. Vardi,et al.  Optimized temporal monitors for SystemC , 2010, RV.

[5]  Marco Pistore,et al.  Weak, strong, and strong cyclic planning via symbolic model checking , 2003, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  LTLf Synthesis with Fairness and Stability Assumptions , 2019, ArXiv.

[7]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Two-Stage Technique for LTLf Synthesis Under LTL Assumptions , 2020, KR.

[8]  Blai Bonet,et al.  Flexible FOND Planning with Explicit Fairness Assumptions , 2021, ICAPS.

[9]  Orna Kupferman,et al.  Model Checking of Safety Properties , 1999, Formal Methods Syst. Des..

[10]  Bowen Alpern,et al.  Recognizing safety and liveness , 2005, Distributed Computing.

[11]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Planning and Synthesis Under Assumptions , 2018, ArXiv.

[12]  Geguang Pu,et al.  Symbolic LTLf Synthesis , 2017, IJCAI.

[13]  Jorge A. Baier,et al.  Planning with Temporally Extended Goals Using Heuristic Search , 2006, ICAPS.

[14]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Automata-Theoretic Foundations of FOND Planning for LTLf and LDLf Goals , 2018, IJCAI.

[15]  Moshe Y. Vardi,et al.  Experimental Evaluation of Classical Automata Constructions , 2005, LPAR.

[16]  Dana S. Scott,et al.  Finite Automata and Their Decision Problems , 1959, IBM J. Res. Dev..

[17]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Linear Temporal Logic and Linear Dynamic Logic on Finite Traces , 2013, IJCAI.

[18]  Bernd Finkbeiner,et al.  Synthesis of Reactive Systems , 2016, Dependable Software Systems Engineering.

[19]  Lydia E. Kavraki,et al.  Efficient Symbolic Reactive Synthesis for Finite-Horizon Tasks , 2019, 2019 International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA).

[20]  Sebastian Sardiña,et al.  Towards Fully Observable Non-Deterministic Planning as Assumption-based Automatic Synthesis , 2015, IJCAI.

[21]  Amir Pnueli,et al.  On the synthesis of a reactive module , 1989, POPL '89.

[22]  Fred Kröger,et al.  Temporal Logic of Programs , 1987, EATCS Monographs on Theoretical Computer Science.

[23]  Giuseppe De Giacomo,et al.  Synthesis for LTL and LDL on Finite Traces , 2015, IJCAI.

[24]  Alberto Camacho,et al.  Towards a Unified View of AI Planning and Reactive Synthesis , 2019, ICAPS.