Integrated Control and Active Perception in POMDPs for Temporal Logic Tasks and Information Acquisition

Chongyang Shi; Jie Fu; Michael R. Dorothy

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 21 references

Integrated Control and Active Perception in POMDPs for Temporal Logic Tasks and Information Acquisition

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Joint control and active perception in a POMDP reduces to a weighted policy-gradient objective built on an entropy identity.

desk verdict A correct but incremental policy-gradient derivation for active perception in POMDPs with LTLf tasks, marred by a real typo in Eq. 10 and thin validation, but worth refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.13288 v1 pith:6MSGOBLH submitted 2025-04-17 eess.SY cs.SY

Chongyang Shi , Michael R. Dorothy , Jie Fu This is my paper · ORCID

classification eess.SYcs.SY

keywords POMDPactiveperceptiontemporallogicLTLfpolicygradientconditionalentropyobservableoperatorinformationacquisition

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper seeks to show that a POMDP whose actions influence both state transitions and sensor emissions can be planned for two goals at once: satisfying a temporal-logic task and actively reducing uncertainty about a hidden critical event. The key move is to make the planner's information include the action history, so that the conditional entropy of the secret given that information is policy-independent at fixed histories. That makes the entropy gradient equal to an expectation of the entropy times the score function, a tractable policy-gradient update. The authors validate this on a UAV surveillance scenario where the secret is the type of a ground robot and the task changes with the type. A sympathetic reader would take the paper's claim to be that joint control and active perception is computationally accessible in this setting, not merely conceptually desirable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the observable operator augmented with actions, a matrix $A_{o|a}=T_a\,\mathrm{diag}(O^a_{o,1},\dots,O^a_{o,N})$ whose entries give the probability of transitioning from state $j$ to state $i$ while emitting observation $o$ under action $a$. Products of these matrices compute the probability of an observation sequence given an action sequence, and hence the posterior probability that the secret holds and the entropy $H(Z_T|Y=y)$. The paper's Lemma 1 is the identity that carries the argument: it converts the entropy gradient into an expectation over histories, and Propositions 2–4 show how to evaluate each ingredient by matrix products and the policy's softmax score. The finite-memory policy class with memory $K=2$ is the search space used in the experiments.

What would settle it

Take a one-step POMDP with two states, two actions, and two observations in which actions affect emissions but the secret is the initial state. Enumerate all histories and compute $\nabla_\theta H(Z_1|Y)$ by brute-force differentiation, then compare with the right-hand side of Lemma 1 computed by the paper's observable-operator formulas. If the two disagree for a policy with a softmax parameterization, the claimed identity, and with it the gradient update, fails; the same test with a horizon of two would also check the recursion in Proposition 4.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, for a parametrized policy in this labeled POMDP, the gradient of the conditional entropy of the secret-state indicator $Z_T$ given the observation–action history $Y_{0:T}$ can be written exactly as $\nabla_\theta H(Z_T|Y;\theta)=\mathbb{E}_{y\sim M_\theta}[H(Z_T|Y=y)\nabla_\theta\log P_\theta(y)]$. Because $Y_{0:T}$ includes the actions, the conditional entropy evaluated at a fixed history does not depend on the policy parameters, so the only policy-dependent term is the probability of the history itself. The same score-function argument gives the gradient of the task-satisfaction probability $\nabla_\theta P_\theta(W_T=1)=\sum_y P(W_T=1|y)P_\theta(y)\nabla_\theta\log P_\theta(y)$. Together these feed a gradient-descent update that minimizes a weighted sum of entropy and negative task probability, yielding a local optimum for the joint control and active-perception problem. The paper also supplies an algorithm for computing these quantities with observable-operator matrices and validates it numerically.

Load-bearing premise

The gradient identity depends on conditioning on the full action–observation history; if the planner's information were limited to observations alone, the posterior entropy would depend on the policy and the paper's simple score-function gradient would no longer hold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Planners can optimize an information-theoretic objective and a temporal-logic objective in one gradient loop, so active perception emerges from the objective rather than from hand-designed sensing rewards.
The approach handles secrets that are not the task itself, such as whether an adversary was present, because the DFA is augmented with a distinguished set of secret states.
The weight $\alpha$ gives an explicit trade-off dial: larger $\alpha$ favors task completion, smaller favors information gain, and the same gradient machinery works across the whole range.
Because the gradient estimator is a score-function estimator, it can be combined with sample-based approximation when the history space is too large to enumerate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

If the identity is as general as it appears, the same score-function structure should apply to other posterior functionals, such as mutual information between the secret and the observation stream, widening the method to richer information objectives.
The inclusion of actions in the conditioning information is the load-bearing choice; conditioning on observations alone would introduce policy-dependent posterior terms that Lemma 1 does not cover, so extending the identity to that setting would require a new derivation.
A direct testable extension would let the memory length $K$ vary and measure how much of the entropy reduction is due to memory versus active sensing, separating the value of remembering from the value of probing.
In the surveillance experiments, the entropy reduction is achieved by a policy that moves to observe the robot's goal region; this suggests the entropy term implicitly incentivizes approaching informative locations, which could be compared against a reward-based active sensing baseline.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The genuinely new piece is the gradient identity in Lemma 1: for a POMDP where actions affect both transitions and emissions, the gradient of the conditional entropy of a secret automaton state given the observation-action history reduces to a weighted policy gradient. Because the conditioning includes the action sequence, the entropy term H(Z_T|Y=y) is policy-independent, so the score-function trick applies cleanly. That is a neat observation and it does generalize the authors' earlier HMM work to the full POMDP setting. The use of observable operators to compute the needed probabilities is also sensible and consistent with the prior literature they build on.

That said, the written derivation has a real flaw: Eq. 10 is malformed. It divides by P(o0|a0) for no reason and omits the initial observation likelihood. For t=0 it would claim Pθ(a0) = πθ(a0), which is just wrong as a probability over the observation-action pair. The stress-test note is right that Lemma 1's proof does not actually use Eq. 10, and Proposition 3's score gradient is correct, so the central claim survives. But a reader implementing the algorithm from the text will compute incorrect trajectory probabilities unless they fix the factorization. This must be corrected before publication.

The experimental section is the weakest part. One small graph-based UAV scenario, no baselines, no ablation of the weight α or memory length K, no code or data. The convergence plots show the algorithm works on this example, but not that it beats anything or that the trade-off curve is well characterized. These are fixable weaknesses, but they limit how much I would rely on the empirical claims.

There is also a minor citation issue: Proposition 2 is attributed to the authors' prior work, but that prior work presumably did not include action-dependent transitions. That is fine as long as the extension is explicit; here the notation suggests it is, but the malformed formula makes it hard to tell.

Overall: this is a modest but legitimate step. The mathematics is mostly standard, the novelty is the combination of LTLf satisfaction with conditional-entropy minimization for a secret set of automaton states, and the gradient computation via observable operators is elegant. The paper deserves a serious referee who can verify the corrected factorization and push for better experiments. I would send it to peer review, with the expectation of major revision before acceptance.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper considers a labeled POMDP in which actions influence both state transitions and observation emissions. Given an LTLf specification encoded as a DFA, the agent maximizes a weighted objective: the probability of satisfying the task minus the conditional entropy of a binary random variable Z_T indicating whether the final automaton state belongs to a secret set F_sec, where the conditioning information Y_0:T includes both observations and actions. The main technical contribution is Lemma 1, which states that the gradient of this conditional entropy with respect to policy parameters equals E_{y~P_theta}[H(Z_T|Y=y) nabla_theta log P_theta(y)], relying on the fact that H(Z_T|Y=y) is independent of the policy once the action sequence is included in y. The paper develops observable-operator formulas to compute H(Z_T|Y=y) and the task-satisfaction probability, and presents a policy-gradient algorithm. The method is demonstrated on a UAV surveillance POMDP with two possible ground-robot types and a finite-state memory policy.

Significance. If the derivation is corrected, the paper gives a clean, tractable policy-gradient scheme for jointly maximizing temporal-logic task satisfaction and information acquisition in POMDPs with action-dependent observations. The key identity is simple but useful, and the use of observable operators makes the entropy term computable by matrix products. The paper also explicitly handles the case where the secret set differs from the accepting set, which is a meaningful generalization beyond standard task satisfaction. The experiments, while simple, show the expected trade-off between task completion and uncertainty reduction. The main caveats are typographical errors in two central equations, not in the underlying argument; these are local and fixable.

major comments (2)

[Section IV, Eq. (10)] The displayed formula for P_theta(o_0:t, a_0:t) is not a valid probability distribution. The denominator P(o_0|a_0) should not be present; the correct factorization is P_theta(o_0:t, a_0:t) = P(o_0:t|a_0:t) * prod_{i=0}^t pi_theta(a_i|o_0:i-1). As printed, for t=0 the emission probability is omitted, and for t>0 the normalization over o_0 fails. This is not used in the proof of Lemma 1, and Proposition 3 remains correct, but the manuscript must replace this equation with the correct factorization and explicitly derive Proposition 3 from it.
[Section IV, Eq. (12)] The conditional entropy is written without the minus sign, i.e., H(Z_T|Y=y) = sum_z P(z|y) log P(z|y). This makes H non-positive and, if used in Eq. (3), would reverse the information-acquisition objective. The missing factor -1 must be restored; the definition in Section III has the correct sign.

minor comments (6)

[Section IV, Eq. (26)] The displayed expression is labeled as an approximation of H but is actually an approximation of nabla_theta H; the notation should be corrected for clarity.
[Section IV, Eq. (27)] The left side uses P_theta(Z_T=1), but the quantity needed in Proposition 5 is P_theta(W_T=1); this is a typo that should be fixed.
[Definition 4] The emission function in the product POMDP is written as E(o|v), but it is used later as E(o|v,a); the action argument should be made explicit.
[Section IV, Proposition 3] The gradient identity is attributed to [17], [20]; since it follows in one line from the corrected Eq. (10) by the log-derivative trick, providing the derivation in the text would make the paper self-contained.
[Section V] The choice K=2 for the memory length is not justified; a short discussion of how the results depend on K would strengthen the evaluation.
[Abstract and Section V] There are minor typographical issues: 'UA V' should be 'UAV', and 'defaulty' should be 'default'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Lemma 1 is standard score-function calculus applied to a policy-independent conditional entropy term, and the supporting propositions are parameter-free identities rather than fitted or self-referential predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Lemma 1 is the log-derivative identity applied to f(y)=H(Z_T|Y=y); the independence of H(Z_T|Y=y) from theta is justified because y includes the action sequence, so the posterior P(z_T|y) is policy-independent. Proposition 4 computes that posterior from the observation operators and emission kernel without using the policy. Propositions 1-3 are cited from the authors' prior work [17], [20], but they are parameter-free algebraic identities (observable-operator factorization and score-function gradient) with stated assumptions that do not include the target result; hence these self-citations are not load-bearing. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed as a prediction; entropy and task-probability values are evaluated from the model and sampled trajectories. One mathematical error exists: Eq. (10) as written drops the initial emission factor P(o0|a0) and is not a valid probability, but Lemma 1's proof does not use Eq. (10), and Proposition 3 remains correct, so this is a correctness risk rather than circularity. The experimental section validates against the same objective that is optimized, but it makes no circular inference that would force the reported results by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The theoretical contribution is a parameter-free gradient identity; the policy theta is the variable being optimized. The model (transition, emission, DFA) is taken as given input, so no physical constants or fitted parameters enter the derivation. The only free parameters appear in the experimental setup (alpha, K, step size), and alpha is not reported.

free parameters (2)

alpha (weight in objective) = not reported
The objective in Problem 2 is a weighted sum H - alpha P; the value of alpha used in the Section V experiments is not stated, so the trade-off between task completion and information acquisition is unspecified.
memory length K = 2
The finite-state controller policy uses the last K observations; K=2 is chosen for the experiments without analysis of its effect on the results.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption LTLf formulas can be converted to deterministic finite automata and task satisfaction is equivalent to reaching a final automaton state at the horizon T.
Assumed in Definition 4 and Problem 2 to build the product POMDP and define W_T as the indicator of reaching F.
domain assumption The posterior P(Z_T|y) does not depend on the policy parameters when y includes the full action sequence.
This is the structural assumption that makes Lemma 1 valid; it is stated in Lemma 1's proof and depends on Y0:T = (O0:T, A0:T).
standard math Observable operator matrices exactly represent the POMDP's observation sequence probabilities (Prop. 1).
Taken from Jaeger [9] and Thon and Jaeger [19]; used to compute P(o0:t|a0:t) and the posterior in Prop. 4.
ad hoc to paper The finite-state controller policy class with memory K and softmax outputs is expressive enough for the optimal trade-off.
K=2 is fixed in the experiments without an expressiveness or optimality analysis; this is an assumption about the policy search space.
ad hoc to paper Gradient descent on the objective (Eq. 3) converges to a locally optimal policy in the experiments.
The paper uses a fixed step size and 1000 iterations and asserts local optimality upon convergence; no convergence theorem is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Integrated Control and Active Perception in POMDPs for Temporal Logic Tasks and Information Acquisition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6MSGOBLH

@misc{pith2026250413288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Integrated Control and Active Perception in POMDPs for Temporal Logic Tasks and Information Acquisition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6MSGOBLH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.13288}
}

read the original abstract

This paper studies the synthesis of a joint control and active perception policy for a stochastic system modeled as a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP), subject to temporal logic specifications. The POMDP actions influence both system dynamics (control) and the emission function (perception). Beyond task completion, the planner seeks to maximize information gain about certain temporal events (the secret) through coordinated perception and control. To enable active information acquisition, we introduce minimizing the Shannon conditional entropy of the secret as a planning objective, alongside maximizing the probability of satisfying the temporal logic formula within a finite horizon. Using a variant of observable operators in hidden Markov models (HMMs) and POMDPs, we establish key properties of the conditional entropy gradient with respect to policy parameters. These properties facilitate efficient policy gradient computation. We validate our approach through graph-based examples, inspired by common security applications with UAV surveillance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.13288 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** The convergence results of the policy gradient method when goal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

21 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

Inductive synthesis of finite-state controllers for pomdps,

R. Andriushchenko, M. ˇCeˇska, S. Junges, and J.-P. Katoen, “Inductive synthesis of finite-state controllers for pomdps,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Cussens and K. Zhang, Eds., vol. 180. PMLR, 01–05 Aug 2022, pp. 85–95. [Online]. Available: ht...

work page 2022
[2]

Integrated perception and planning in the continuous space: A pomdp approach,

H. Bai, D. Hsu, and W. S. Lee, “Integrated perception and planning in the continuous space: A pomdp approach,” Int. J. Rob. Res. , vol. 33, no. 9, p. 1288–1302, Aug. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364914528255

work page doi:10.1177/0278364914528255 2014
[3]

Point-based methods for model checking in partially observable markov decision processes,

M. Bouton, J. Tumova, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Point-based methods for model checking in partially observable markov decision processes,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 34, no. 06, 2020, pp. 10 061–10 068

work page 2020
[4]

Counterexample-Guided Strategy Improvement for POMDPs Using Recurrent Neural Networks,

S. Carr, N. Jansen, R. Wimmer, A. Serban, B. Becker, and U. Topcu, “Counterexample-Guided Strategy Improvement for POMDPs Using Recurrent Neural Networks,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Macao, China: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, Aug. 2019, pp. 553...

work page 2019
[5]

Counterexample-Guided Strategy Improvement for POMDPs Using Recurrent Neural Networks

S. Carr, N. Jansen, R. Wimmer, A. C. Serban, B. Becker, and U. Topcu, “Counterexample-guided strategy improvement for pomdps using recurrent neural networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1903.08428, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08428

work page Pith review arXiv 1903
[6]

Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces,

G. De Giacomo and M. Y . Vardi, “Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces,” in IJCAI’13 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence . Association for Computing Machinery, 2013, pp. 854–860

work page 2013
[7]

Synthesis of Joint Control and Active Sensing Strategies Under Temporal Logic Constraints,

J. Fu and U. Topcu, “Synthesis of Joint Control and Active Sensing Strategies Under Temporal Logic Constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 3464–3476, Nov. 2016, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7384426

work page arXiv 2016
[8]

Online active perception for partially observable markov decision processes with limited budget,

M. Ghasemi and U. Topcu, “Online active perception for partially observable markov decision processes with limited budget,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE Press, 2019, p. 6169–6174. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029762

arXiv 2019

Show all 21 references

[9]

Observable Operator Models for Discrete Stochastic Time Series,

H. Jaeger, “Observable Operator Models for Discrete Stochastic Time Series,” Neural Computation, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 1371–1398, 06 2000

2000
[10]

Optimal control of partially observable markov decision processes with finite linear temporal logic constraints,

K. C. Kalagarla, K. Dhruva, D. Shen, R. Jain, A. Nayyar, and P. Nuzzo, “Optimal control of partially observable markov decision processes with finite linear temporal logic constraints,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , ...

2022
[11]

Leakage-minimal design: Univer- sality, limitations, and applications,

M. Khouzani and P. Malacaria, “Leakage-minimal design: Univer- sality, limitations, and applications,” in 2017 IEEE 30th Computer Security Foundations Symposium (CSF) , 2017, pp. 305–317

2017
[12]

Control in belief space with temporal logic specifications using vision-based localization,

K. Leahy, E. Cristofalo, C.-I. Vasile, A. Jones, E. Montijano, M. Schwager, and C. Belta, “Control in belief space with temporal logic specifications using vision-based localization,” The International Journal of Robotics Research , vol. 38, no. 6, pp. 702–722, May 2019, publi...

2019 doi
[13]

Temporal Logic Task Planning for Autonomous Systems With Active Acquisition of Information,

S. Li, M. Wei, S. Li, and X. Yin, “Temporal Logic Task Planning for Autonomous Systems With Active Acquisition of Information,” IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles , vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1436–1449, Jan. 2024, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles. [Onl...

2024
[14]

Manna and A

Z. Manna and A. Pnueli, The Temporal Logic of Reactive and Concurrent Systems . New York, NY: Springer New York, 1992. [Online]. Available: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/ 978-1-4612-0931-7

1992
[15]

Uncertainty-aware guidance for target tracking subject to intermittent measurements using motion model learning,

A. Pulido, K. V olle, K. Waters, Z. I. Bell, P. Ganesh, and J. Shin, “Uncertainty-aware guidance for target tracking subject to intermittent measurements using motion model learning,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.00671

2025 arXiv
[16]

Finite state control of pomdps with ltl specifications,

R. Sharan and J. W. Burdick, “Finite state control of pomdps with ltl specifications,” 2014 American Control Conference , pp. 501–508,

2014
[17]

Active perception with initial- state uncertainty: A policy gradient method,

C. Shi, S. Han, M. Dorothy, and J. Fu, “Active perception with initial- state uncertainty: A policy gradient method,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, pp. 3147–3152, 2024

2024
[18]

Policy gradi- ent methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation,

R. S. Sutton, D. McAllester, S. Singh, and Y . Mansour, “Policy gradi- ent methods for reinforcement learning with function approximation,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , S. Solla, T. Leen, and K. M ¨uller, Eds., vol. 12. MIT Press, 1999

1999
[19]

Links between multiplicity automata, observable operator models and predictive state representations – a unified learning framework,

M. Thon and H. Jaeger, “Links between multiplicity automata, observable operator models and predictive state representations – a unified learning framework,” Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 103–147, 2015. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/v1...

2015
[20]

Synthesis of dynamic masks for information-theoretic opacity in stochastic systems,

S. Udupa, C. Shi, and J. Fu, “Synthesis of dynamic masks for information-theoretic opacity in stochastic systems,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2502.10552

2025 arXiv
[2014]

Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 17737573

[Online]. Available: https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID: 17737573

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Inductive synthesis of finite-state controllers for pomdps,

R. Andriushchenko, M. ˇCeˇska, S. Junges, and J.-P. Katoen, “Inductive synthesis of finite-state controllers for pomdps,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Eighth Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence , ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Cussens and K. Zhang, Eds., vol. 180. PMLR, 01–05 Aug 2022, pp. 85–95. [Online]. Available: ht...

work page 2022

[2] [2]

Integrated perception and planning in the continuous space: A pomdp approach,

H. Bai, D. Hsu, and W. S. Lee, “Integrated perception and planning in the continuous space: A pomdp approach,” Int. J. Rob. Res. , vol. 33, no. 9, p. 1288–1302, Aug. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0278364914528255

work page doi:10.1177/0278364914528255 2014

[3] [3]

Point-based methods for model checking in partially observable markov decision processes,

M. Bouton, J. Tumova, and M. J. Kochenderfer, “Point-based methods for model checking in partially observable markov decision processes,” in Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence , vol. 34, no. 06, 2020, pp. 10 061–10 068

work page 2020

[4] [4]

Counterexample-Guided Strategy Improvement for POMDPs Using Recurrent Neural Networks,

S. Carr, N. Jansen, R. Wimmer, A. Serban, B. Becker, and U. Topcu, “Counterexample-Guided Strategy Improvement for POMDPs Using Recurrent Neural Networks,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence . Macao, China: International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, Aug. 2019, pp. 553...

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Counterexample-Guided Strategy Improvement for POMDPs Using Recurrent Neural Networks

S. Carr, N. Jansen, R. Wimmer, A. C. Serban, B. Becker, and U. Topcu, “Counterexample-guided strategy improvement for pomdps using recurrent neural networks,” CoRR, vol. abs/1903.08428, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1903.08428

work page Pith review arXiv 1903

[6] [6]

Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces,

G. De Giacomo and M. Y . Vardi, “Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces,” in IJCAI’13 Proceedings of the Twenty-Third international joint conference on Artificial Intelligence . Association for Computing Machinery, 2013, pp. 854–860

work page 2013

[7] [7]

Synthesis of Joint Control and Active Sensing Strategies Under Temporal Logic Constraints,

J. Fu and U. Topcu, “Synthesis of Joint Control and Active Sensing Strategies Under Temporal Logic Constraints,” IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control , vol. 61, no. 11, pp. 3464–3476, Nov. 2016, conference Name: IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/7384426

work page arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

Online active perception for partially observable markov decision processes with limited budget,

M. Ghasemi and U. Topcu, “Online active perception for partially observable markov decision processes with limited budget,” in 2019 IEEE 58th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) . IEEE Press, 2019, p. 6169–6174. [Online]. Available: https: //doi.org/10.1109/CDC40024.2019.9029762

arXiv 2019