pith. sign in

arxiv: 2506.06038 · v2 · submitted 2025-06-06 · 📡 eess.SY · cs.RO· cs.SY

Trajectory Optimization for UAV-Based Medical Delivery with Temporal Logic Constraints and Convex Feasible Set Collision Avoidance

Kaiyuan Chen , Yuhan Suo , Shaowei Cui , Yuanqing Xia , Wannian Liang , Shuo Wang This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 11:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 📡 eess.SY cs.ROcs.SY
keywords UAV trajectory optimizationSignal Temporal LogicConvex optimizationMedical deliveryCollision avoidanceUrban environmentsTemporal constraints
0
0 comments X

The pith

UAV medical delivery trajectories are planned as one convex optimization problem that meets time windows and avoids buildings.

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

The paper sets out to show that a drone delivering blood to multiple hospitals, each with its own time window and priority, can have its entire route planned in a single convex optimization. It encodes the timing rules with signal temporal logic and treats city buildings as convex obstacles that must be avoided through a convex feasible set method. Because everything stays convex, the problem becomes solvable with standard solvers and produces paths that respect the drone's motion limits, stay clear of obstacles, and hit the required times. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a complex, potentially non-convex planning task into something reliable and fast enough for real urban medical logistics.

Core claim

The entire planning problem—combining UAV dynamics, STL satisfaction, and collision avoidance—is formulated as a convex optimization problem that ensures tractability and can be solved efficiently using standard convex programming techniques. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method generates dynamically feasible, collision-free trajectories that satisfy temporal mission goals, providing a scalable and reliable approach for autonomous UAV-based medical logistics.

What carries the argument

Convex optimization formulation that encodes 3DOF UAV dynamics, Signal Temporal Logic specifications for time windows and priorities, and Convex Feasible Set collision avoidance for 3D convex building obstacles.

If this is right

  • The resulting trajectories remain dynamically feasible for the UAV's motion model.
  • Paths stay collision-free with respect to the modeled 3D convex obstacles.
  • All specified temporal constraints and priorities are satisfied by construction through the STL encoding.
  • The full problem can be solved to a solution using off-the-shelf convex solvers in reasonable time.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same convex encoding approach could be tested on other single-vehicle tasks that combine timing rules with geometric safety, such as inspection or emergency response flights.
  • If real sensor noise or wind disturbances are added, the method would need a way to keep the problem convex while adding robustness margins.
  • Extending the formulation to fleets of UAVs would require checking whether coordination constraints can be kept convex without losing the tractability benefit.

Load-bearing premise

The time windows and priorities can be converted into convex constraints that still guarantee the drone meets the deadlines and avoids crashes whenever the optimizer reports success.

What would settle it

Run the optimizer on a test case with a tight time window or narrow gap between buildings; if the output trajectory misses the window or intersects an obstacle model, the claim that the formulation preserves both feasibility and guarantees is false.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.06038 by Kaiyuan Chen, Shaowei Cui, Shuo Wang, Wannian Liang, Yuanqing Xia, Yuhan Suo.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: compares the optimized UAV trajectory obtained using the proposed convex approach (orange) against that generated by a standard Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) solver (blue) (Gill, Murray and Saunders, 2005). Both 3D and top-down views are shown. The convex method successfully produces a smooth, dynamically feasible trajectory that visits all three hospitals while respecting the obstacle constraints… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Objective function value history [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Computational performance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: STL function history The robustness functions exhibit a sharp rise as the UAV approaches each hospital within its time window, eventually reaching zero and staying flat afterward. This behavior confirms that the UAV not only enters the goal region but does so within the prescribed temporal interval and with a sufficient safety margin. The positive slope of each 𝜇𝑘 (t) curve further suggests that the planne… view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The iterative structure of the method, combined with convex programming at each stage, enables robust and predictable convergence even from a simple straight-line initialization. These properties make the approach particularly suitable for deployment in safety-critical scenarios such as UAV-based medical delivery, where mission success and timing compliance are essential. 5. Conclusion This paper presents … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

This paper addresses the problem of trajectory optimization for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) performing time-sensitive medical deliveries in urban environments. Specifically, we consider a single UAV with 3 degree-of-freedom dynamics tasked with delivering blood packages to multiple hospitals, each with a predefined time window and priority. Mission objectives are encoded using Signal Temporal Logic (STL), enabling the formal specification of spatial-temporal constraints. To ensure safety, city buildings are modeled as 3D convex obstacles, and obstacle avoidance is handled through a Convex Feasible Set (CFS) method. The entire planning problem-combining UAV dynamics, STL satisfaction, and collision avoidance-is formulated as a convex optimization problem that ensures tractability and can be solved efficiently using standard convex programming techniques. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed method generates dynamically feasible, collision-free trajectories that satisfy temporal mission goals, providing a scalable and reliable approach for autonomous UAV-based medical logistics.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a trajectory optimization framework for a single 3DOF UAV performing time-sensitive blood deliveries to multiple hospitals. Mission requirements (time windows and priorities) are encoded via Signal Temporal Logic (STL), urban buildings are represented as 3D convex obstacles, and collision avoidance is performed with the Convex Feasible Set (CFS) method. The combined problem of dynamics, STL satisfaction, and obstacle avoidance is formulated as a convex program claimed to be solvable by standard convex solvers; simulation results are stated to confirm that the generated trajectories are dynamically feasible, collision-free, and STL-compliant.

Significance. If the STL encoding truly yields a convex program whose feasible solutions satisfy the original temporal formulas with formal guarantees, the approach would supply a practical, scalable route to safe UAV medical logistics in cluttered urban airspace. The combination of STL mission specification with CFS convexity preservation is a potentially useful engineering contribution, though the absence of quantitative metrics, runtime data, or baseline comparisons in the abstract makes the practical advantage difficult to gauge at present.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the full planning problem (3DOF dynamics + STL + CFS) is a convex program whose solutions satisfy the original STL formulas is asserted without any cited derivation, robustness-function epigraph, or discretization argument showing how disjunctive 'eventually-in-[t1,t2]' and priority operators are rendered convex while preserving formal satisfaction. Simulations alone do not establish this property.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and simulation section: no quantitative metrics (e.g., solve time, robustness margin, success rate over Monte-Carlo trials, or comparison against a non-convex baseline) are reported, so the tractability and reliability assertions rest on unshown numerical evidence.
minor comments (2)
  1. The abstract would be strengthened by a single sentence summarizing the key numerical outcomes (solve time, achieved robustness, number of hospitals visited on time).
  2. Notation for the STL robustness function and the CFS projection operator should be introduced consistently before the optimization problem is stated.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments and the opportunity to improve our manuscript. We address the major comments point by point below, proposing specific revisions where appropriate.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central claim that the full planning problem (3DOF dynamics + STL + CFS) is a convex program whose solutions satisfy the original STL formulas is asserted without any cited derivation, robustness-function epigraph, or discretization argument showing how disjunctive 'eventually-in-[t1,t2]' and priority operators are rendered convex while preserving formal satisfaction. Simulations alone do not establish this property.

    Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for a more explicit derivation. Section III-B of the manuscript presents the STL robustness encoding and its incorporation into the convex program via epigraph forms and time discretization. The 'eventually' operator is handled by auxiliary variables over the discrete time steps with a convex relaxation of the disjunction, while priority is encoded through weighted robustness terms. We acknowledge that the current presentation assumes familiarity with these techniques and does not fully detail the approximation steps or formal guarantees for the original (non-approximated) STL. In the revision we will add a dedicated subsection with the full derivation, epigraph representations, and citations to convex STL literature, while clarifying that solutions satisfy the approximated specifications. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and simulation section: no quantitative metrics (e.g., solve time, robustness margin, success rate over Monte-Carlo trials, or comparison against a non-convex baseline) are reported, so the tractability and reliability assertions rest on unshown numerical evidence.

    Authors: We agree that quantitative metrics would strengthen the claims. The current simulations in Section V illustrate feasibility on representative scenarios but lack tabulated metrics. In the revised version we will add a table reporting solver runtimes, achieved robustness margins for each STL formula, and results from repeated trials with perturbed initial conditions to indicate reliability. A full Monte-Carlo study and direct non-convex baseline comparison are not feasible within the scope of this work without substantial new implementation; we will instead emphasize the convexity benefits and cite related benchmarks in the discussion. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: convex formulation relies on standard techniques without self-referential reduction

full rationale

The paper formulates the UAV trajectory problem (3DOF dynamics + STL temporal constraints + CFS convex obstacle avoidance) as a convex program solved via standard convex programming. No equation or section reduces the claimed convexity, STL satisfaction guarantees, or tractability to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The derivation chain is self-contained against external benchmarks of convex optimization and STL encoding methods, with no evidence that any 'prediction' or result is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on standard robotics assumptions about convex obstacle modeling and the ability to convexify STL specifications; no new entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • objective weights
    Likely used to trade off time-window satisfaction, dynamics cost, and avoidance margins inside the convex program.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Buildings can be represented as 3D convex obstacles without loss of safety guarantees
    Invoked to enable the convex feasible set method.
  • domain assumption STL formulas for time windows and priorities admit a convex encoding
    Required for the overall problem to remain a convex program.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5710 in / 1330 out tokens · 42443 ms · 2026-05-19T11:03:53.356118+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Computer Communications 149, 270–299

    Path planning techniques for unmanned aerial vehicles: A review, solutions, and challenges. Computer Communications 149, 270–299. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comcom.2019.10.014. Bauer, J., Moormann, D., Strametz, R., Groneberg, D.A.,

    work page doi:10.1016/j.comcom.2019.10.014 2019

  2. [2]

    Belta, C., Sadraddini, S.,

    doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043791. Belta, C., Sadraddini, S.,

    work page doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043791 2020

  3. [3]

    Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 2, 115–140

    Formal methods for control synthesis: An optimization perspective. Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems 2, 115–140. doi:https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023717. Betts,J.T.,2010. PracticalMethodsforOptimalControlandEstimationUsingNonlinearProgramming,SecondEdition. SocietyforIndustrialand Applied Mathematics. doi:10.1137...

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-control-053018-023717 2010

  4. [4]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 10, 5935–5942

    Resilient online planning for mobile robots with minimal relaxation of signal temporal logic specifications. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 10, 5935–5942. doi:10.1109/LRA.2025.3563119. Buyukkocak, A.T., Aksaray, D., Yazıcıoğlu, Y.,

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2025.3563119 2025

  5. [5]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 1375–1382

    Planning of heterogeneous multi-agent systems under signal temporal logic specifications with integral predicates. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 1375–1382. doi:10.1109/LRA.2021.3057049. Chen, Q., Cheng, S., Hovakimyan, N.,

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3057049 2021

  6. [6]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8, 3860–3867

    Simultaneous spatial and temporal assignment for fast uav trajectory optimization using bilevel optimization. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8, 3860–3867. doi:10.1109/LRA.2023.3273399. Chen, Z., Cai, M., Zhou, Z., Li, L., Kan, Z.,

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3273399 2023

  7. [7]

    IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 22, 5293–5307

    Fast motion planning in dynamic environments with extended predicate-based temporal logic. IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering 22, 5293–5307. doi:10.1109/TASE.2024.3418409. Foehn,P.,Romero,A.,Scaramuzza,D.,2021. Time-optimalplanningforquadrotorwaypointflight. ScienceRobotics6,eabh1221. doi: 10.1126/ scirobotics.abh1221. Funk, N., Tarri...

    work page doi:10.1109/tase.2024.3418409 2024

  8. [8]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8, 6723–6730

    Orientation-Aware Hierarchical, Adaptive-Resolution A* Algorithm for UAV Trajectory Planning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 8, 6723–6730. doi:10.1109/LRA.2023.3308490. Gill, P.E., Murray, W., Saunders, M.A.,

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3308490 2023

  9. [9]

    SIAM Review 47, 99–131

    SNOPT: An SQP Algorithm for Large-Scale Constrained Optimization. SIAM Review 47, 99–131. doi:10.1137/S0036144504446096. Gilpin, Y., Kurtz, V., Lin, H.,

    work page doi:10.1137/s0036144504446096

  10. [10]

    IEEE Control Systems Letters 5, 241–246

    A smooth robustness measure of signal temporal logic for symbolic control. IEEE Control Systems Letters 5, 241–246. doi:10.1109/LCSYS.2020.3001875. Grant,M.,Boyd,S.,2008. Graphimplementationsfornonsmoothconvexprograms,in:Blondel,V.,Boyd,S.,Kimura,H.(Eds.),RecentAdvances in Learning and Control. Springer-Verlag Limited. Lecture Notes in Control and Informa...

    work page doi:10.1109/lcsys.2020.3001875 2020

  11. [11]

    IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 3687–3694

    Event-based signal temporal logic synthesis for single and multi-robot tasks. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters 6, 3687–3694. doi:10.1109/LRA.2021.3064220. Kuang, H., Liu, X.,

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2021.3064220 2021

  12. [12]

    IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 60, 7251–7261

    Convergence-guaranteed trajectory optimization for quadrotors subject to aerodynamic drag. IEEE Transactions on Aerospace and Electronic Systems 60, 7251–7261. doi:10.1109/TAES.2024.3414958. Liu,C.,Lin,C.Y.,Tomizuka,M.,2018. Theconvexfeasiblesetalgorithmforrealtimeoptimizationinmotionplanning. SIAMJournalonControl and Optimization 56, 2712–2733. doi:10.11...

    work page doi:10.1109/taes.2024.3414958 2024

  13. [13]

    IEEE Control Systems Magazine 42, 40–113

    Convex optimization for trajectory generation: A tutorial on generating dynamically feasible trajectories reliably and efficiently. IEEE Control Systems Magazine 42, 40–113. doi:10.1109/ MCS.2022.3187542. Morrell,B.,Thakker,R.,Merewether,G.,Reid,R.,Rigter,M.,Tzanetos,T.,Chamitoff,G.,2018. Comparisonoftrajectoryoptimizationalgorithms for high-speed quadrot...

    work page doi:10.1109/lra.2018.2868866 2022

  14. [14]

    Low-loss self- packaged Ka -Band LTCC filter using artificial multimode SIW resonator,

    Model predictive contouring control for time-optimal quadrotor flight. IEEE Transactions on Robotics 38, 3340–3356. doi:10.1109/TRO.2022.3173711. Szmuk, M., Malyuta, D., Reynolds, T.P., Mceowen, M.S., Açikmeşe, B.,

    work page doi:10.1109/tro.2022.3173711 2022

  15. [15]

    and Jackson, Brian E

    Real-time quad-rotor path planning using convex optimization and compound state-triggered constraints, in: 2019 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pp. 7666–7673. doi:10.1109/IROS40897.2019.8967706. Zhang, G., Liu, X.,

    work page doi:10.1109/iros40897.2019.8967706 2019

  16. [16]

    Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 45, 1732–1738

    Uav collision avoidance using mixed-integer second-order cone programming. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 45, 1732–1738. doi:10.2514/1.G006353. Chen et al.:Preprint submitted to Elsevier Page 11 of 11

    work page doi:10.2514/1.g006353