pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.14440 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-09 · 💻 cs.AI

On Tackling Complex Tasks with Reward Machines and Signal Temporal Logics

Ana Mar\'ia G\'omez Ruiz (UGA) , Thao Dang (VERIMAG - IMAG , CNRS , UGA) , Alexandre Donz\'e This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 16:44 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords reinforcement learningreward machinessignal temporal logictask specificationevent generationonline monitoringcontrol systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Extending reward machines with signal temporal logic allows reinforcement learning to handle complex tasks through efficient reward design and guided training.

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

This paper introduces a framework that augments reward machines with signal temporal logic formulas to manage complex tasks in reinforcement learning. The STL component enables better event generation for rewards and helps direct the agent's learning toward satisfying given requirements. Demonstrated through implementations using online monitoring in three different environments, the method aims to reduce the difficulty of specifying intricate behaviors. If correct, it would mean RL practitioners can tackle more sophisticated control problems with less custom engineering.

Core claim

The authors claim that by extending reward machines with signal temporal logic formulas for event generation, one can achieve a more efficient representation of rewards for complex tasks while also guiding the reinforcement learning process to converge to behaviors that satisfy the specified temporal requirements, as illustrated in case studies involving minigrid, cart-pole, and highway environments.

What carries the argument

Reward machines augmented with signal temporal logic formulas, which generate events to shape rewards and steer training.

If this is right

  • The framework provides a more efficient way to represent rewards for complex tasks.
  • Training converges towards behaviors satisfying the STL requirements.
  • Implementation leverages STL online monitoring algorithms.
  • The approach is illustrated successfully in minigrid, cart-pole, and highway environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • This approach could generalize to other logic-based specifications beyond STL.
  • It might enable safer deployment of RL in safety-critical systems by enforcing temporal properties during learning.
  • Future work could test scalability to higher-dimensional state spaces or real robotic hardware.

Load-bearing premise

The integration of STL formulas into reward machines produces rewards that are both more efficient and sufficient to guide training reliably to requirement satisfaction without additional adjustments for different tasks.

What would settle it

A case study result where the STL-extended reward machine leads to lower task success rates or slower convergence than a standard reward machine in the highway environment would falsify the benefit.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.14440 by Alexandre Donz\'e, Ana Mar\'ia G\'omez Ruiz (UGA), CNRS, Thao Dang (VERIMAG - IMAG, UGA).

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The objective of the agent is to pick up the key and then open the door. The agent in these environments is a triangle-like agent with a discrete action space, which consists of seven actions (0–6), enabling the agent to move 2https://github.com/decyphir/rlrom 3https://github.com/decyphir/stlrom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Reward machine of the Minigrid agent The training was conducted on environments of increasing complexity, starting with grid size 6x6 and progressively expanding up to 12 × 12. For each grid configuration, two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Results from training an agent in the Unlock en￾vironment from a extended grid size 12x12 in MiniGrid. Blue: vanilla; orange: RM state in observation with STL specification during training. models were trained: a baseline vanilla PPO agent and the proposed RM-STL implementation, under identical hyper￾parameters 5 times each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Results achieved by the trained models when evalu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The cart-pole environment, augmented with target [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Reward machines of the cart pole: R 1 encodes the task to go to region A and then to region B and stay there. R 2 enforces episode termination when the formula ϕstuck defined in formula (1) is true. composed of three subsequential subtasks, since the reward should reflect which subtasks have been achieved and which remain to be executed. The RM describing this objective is presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:fi… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Results for 10 training instances with (green) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Test results of a single episode using the sub-optimal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Training results for different values of rewards [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Reward machine and formulas for the highway-env [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We propose a Reinforcement Learning (RL) based control design framework for handling complex tasks. The approach extends the concept of Reward Machines (RM) with Signal Temporal Logic (STL) formulas that can be used for event generation. The use of STL allows not only a more efficient representation of rewards for complex tasks but also guiding the training process to converge towards behaviors satisfying specified requirements. We also propose an implementation of the framework that leverages the STL online monitoring algorithms. We illustrate the framework with three case studies (minigrid, cart-pole and high-way environments) with non-trivial tasks.

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

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper proposes an RL control framework that extends Reward Machines (RM) by incorporating Signal Temporal Logic (STL) formulas for event generation. This is claimed to yield more compact reward representations for complex tasks while also guiding policy training toward satisfaction of the STL requirements. The framework is implemented via STL online monitoring algorithms and illustrated on three case studies (Minigrid, Cart-pole, and Highway) involving non-trivial tasks.

Significance. If the integration of STL monitors into RM produces events that preserve finite-state structure and translate robustness into effective reward signals without per-task tuning, the approach could offer a more systematic alternative to manual reward shaping for temporally extended specifications in RL. The emphasis on online monitoring is practically relevant for deployment.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract / Case Studies] Abstract and case-study descriptions: the central claim that STL yields 'more efficient representation of rewards' and 'guiding the training process' is not supported by any reported metrics on RM state-space size, number of events, or sample complexity relative to plain RM or shaped-reward baselines.
  2. [Implementation] Implementation section (implied by 'leverages the STL online monitoring algorithms'): no discussion or pseudocode shows how the STL robustness values are mapped to discrete RM events without introducing task-specific thresholds or discretization parameters that would undermine the claimed seamlessness and generality.
  3. [Case Studies] Case studies (Minigrid, Cart-pole, Highway): the three environments are presented as illustrations, yet no ablation isolates the STL component, no comparison tables report success rates or convergence speed against RM-only or STL-only baselines, and no information is given on whether predicate thresholds were fixed across domains or tuned per environment.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Framework] Notation for the combined RM+STL transition function is not introduced explicitly, making it difficult to verify that the finite-state property is preserved.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract mentions 'non-trivial tasks' but provides no formal statement of the STL formulas used in each case study.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their insightful comments, which highlight areas where the manuscript can be strengthened with additional empirical evidence and implementation details. We address each major comment below and outline the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / Case Studies] Abstract and case-study descriptions: the central claim that STL yields 'more efficient representation of rewards' and 'guiding the training process' is not supported by any reported metrics on RM state-space size, number of events, or sample complexity relative to plain RM or shaped-reward baselines.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the current version of the manuscript relies on qualitative illustrations in the case studies to demonstrate the benefits of integrating STL with Reward Machines. While the abstract and descriptions highlight the potential for more compact representations and guided training, no direct quantitative comparisons are provided. In the revised manuscript, we will include metrics such as RM state-space sizes, number of generated events, and learning curves comparing sample complexity against RM-only and other baselines to substantiate these claims. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Implementation] Implementation section (implied by 'leverages the STL online monitoring algorithms'): no discussion or pseudocode shows how the STL robustness values are mapped to discrete RM events without introducing task-specific thresholds or discretization parameters that would undermine the claimed seamlessness and generality.

    Authors: The manuscript proposes an implementation leveraging STL online monitoring algorithms but does not provide explicit details or pseudocode on the mapping from continuous robustness values to discrete events. We agree that this mapping is crucial for understanding the framework's generality. In the revision, we will add a dedicated subsection with pseudocode illustrating the mapping process. We note that while some discretization may be inherent to event generation, the approach aims to preserve the finite-state structure of RMs and use robustness directly where possible to minimize task-specific tuning. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Case Studies] Case studies (Minigrid, Cart-pole, Highway): the three environments are presented as illustrations, yet no ablation isolates the STL component, no comparison tables report success rates or convergence speed against RM-only or STL-only baselines, and no information is given on whether predicate thresholds were fixed across domains or tuned per environment.

    Authors: The case studies serve to illustrate the applicability of the framework to non-trivial tasks across different domains. However, we recognize the value of ablations and quantitative comparisons. The revised version will include ablation studies isolating the STL component, tables with success rates and convergence metrics, and clarification on the predicate thresholds used, specifying if they were fixed or tuned and providing justification for the choices to ensure reproducibility. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: methodological proposal with external case-study support

full rationale

The paper introduces a framework extending Reward Machines via STL-based event generation for RL tasks. Claims of more compact rewards and guided convergence rest on the proposed architecture and three illustrative environments rather than any equation or parameter that reduces to its own inputs by construction. No self-definitional mappings, fitted-input predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the derivation chain. The STL online monitor is treated as an external primitive, and results are demonstrated empirically without renaming known patterns or smuggling ansatzes.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract provides no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities; the framework is described at a high level without mathematical details.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5409 in / 982 out tokens · 41825 ms · 2026-05-10T16:44:40.688416+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Q- Learning for robust satisfaction of Signal Temporal Logic specifica- tions,

    D. Aksaray, A. Jones, Z. Kong, M. Schwager, and C. Belta, “Q- Learning for robust satisfaction of Signal Temporal Logic specifica- tions,” in2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2016, pp. 6565–6570

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    Reinforcement learning with temporal logic rewards,

    X. Li, C. I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “Reinforcement learning with temporal logic rewards,”CoRR, vol. abs/1612.03471, 2016. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1612.03471

    work page arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    LTLf/LDLf Non- Markovian Rewards,

    R. Brafman, G. De Giacomo, and F. Patrizi, “LTLf/LDLf Non- Markovian Rewards,”Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artifi- cial Intelligence, vol. 32, no. 1, Apr. 2018

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Reinforcement learning for temporal logic control synthesis with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees,

    M. Hasanbeig, Y . Kantaros, A. Abate, D. Kroening, G. J. Pappas, and I. Lee, “Reinforcement learning for temporal logic control synthesis with probabilistic satisfaction guarantees,” 2019. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.05304

    work page arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Foundations for Restraining Bolts: Reinforcement Learning with LTLf/LDLf Re- straining Specifications,

    G. De Giacomo, L. Iocchi, M. Favorito, and F. Patrizi, “Foundations for Restraining Bolts: Reinforcement Learning with LTLf/LDLf Re- straining Specifications,” inProceedings of the International Confer- ence on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 29, 05 2021, pp. 128–136

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    Omega-Regular Objectives in Model-Free Reinforce- ment Learning,

    E. M. Hahn, M. Perez, S. Schewe, F. Somenzi, A. Trivedi, and D. Wojtczak, “Omega-Regular Objectives in Model-Free Reinforce- ment Learning,” inTools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, T. V ojnar and L. Zhang, Eds. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019, pp. 395–412

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Deep Reinforcement Learning with Temporal Logics,

    M. Hasanbeig, D. Kroening, and A. Abate, “Deep Reinforcement Learning with Temporal Logics,” inProceedings of 18th International Conference Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems FOR- MATS, vol. 29, 2020, pp. 1–22

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Transfer of temporal logic formulas in reinforcement learning,

    Z. Xu and U. Topcu, “Transfer of temporal logic formulas in reinforcement learning,”CoRR, vol. abs/1909.04256, 2019. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.04256

    work page arXiv 1909

  9. [9]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.04950 , year=

    P. Kapoor, A. Balakrishnan, and J. V . Deshmukh, “Model-based Reinforcement Learning from Signal Temporal Logic Specifications,” CoRR, vol. abs/2011.04950, 2020

    work page arXiv 2011

  10. [10]

    Encoding formulas as deep networks: Reinforcement learning for zero-shot execution of LTL formulas,

    Y .-L. Kuo, B. Katz, and A. Barbu, “Encoding formulas as deep networks: Reinforcement learning for zero-shot execution of LTL formulas,” in2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), 2020, pp. 5604–5610

    work page 2020

  11. [11]

    Temporal-logic-based reward shaping for continuing learning tasks,

    Y . Jiang, S. Bharadwaj, B. Wu, R. Shah, U. Topcu, and P. Stone, “Temporal-logic-based reward shaping for continuing learning tasks,”CoRR, vol. abs/2007.01498, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.01498

    work page arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    LTL2Action: Generalizing LTL Instructions for Multi-Task RL,

    P. Vaezipoor, A. C. Li, R. T. Icarte, and S. A. McIlraith, “LTL2Action: Generalizing LTL Instructions for Multi-Task RL,” inInternational Conference on Machine Learning, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    A composable specification language for reinforcement learning tasks,

    K. Jothimurugan, R. Alur, and O. Bastani, “A composable specification language for reinforcement learning tasks,” inProceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2019, pp. 13 041–13 051

    work page 2019

  14. [14]

    A framework for transforming specifications in reinforcement learning,

    R. Alur, S. Bansal, O. Bastani, and K. Jothimurugan, “A framework for transforming specifications in reinforcement learning,” CoRR, vol. abs/2111.00272, 2021. [Online]. Available: https: //arxiv.org/abs/2111.00272

    work page arXiv 2021

  15. [15]

    Using reward machines for high-level task specification and decomposition in reinforcement learning,

    R. T. Icarte, T. Klassen, R. Valenzano, and S. McIlraith, “Using reward machines for high-level task specification and decomposition in reinforcement learning,” inProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning, ser. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, J. Dy and A. Krause, Eds., vol. 80. PMLR, 10–15 Jul 2018, pp. 2107–2116. [Onl...

    work page 2018

  16. [17]

    LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning,

    A. Camacho, R. Toro Icarte, T. Q. Klassen, R. Valenzano, and S. A. McIlraith, “LTL and Beyond: Formal Languages for Reward Function Specification in Reinforcement Learning,” inProceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, IJCAI-19. International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence Organization, 2019, ...

    work page 2019

  17. [18]

    Reward machines for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning,

    C. Neary, Z. Xu, B. Wu, and U. Topcu, “Reward machines for cooperative multi-agent reinforcement learning,”CoRR, vol. abs/2007.01962, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007. 01962

    work page arXiv 2007

  18. [19]

    Enforcing Signal Temporal Logic Specifications in Multi-Agent Adversarial Environ- ments: A Deep Q-Learning Approach,

    D. Muniraj, K. G. Vamvoudakis, and M. Farhood, “Enforcing Signal Temporal Logic Specifications in Multi-Agent Adversarial Environ- ments: A Deep Q-Learning Approach,” in2018 IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2018, pp. 4141–4146

    work page 2018

  19. [20]

    Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Net- worked Control with Network Delays for Signal Temporal Logic Spec- ifications,

    J. Ikemoto and T. Ushio, “Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Net- worked Control with Network Delays for Signal Temporal Logic Spec- ifications,” in2022 IEEE 27th International Conference on Emerging Technologies and Factory Automation (ETFA), 2022, pp. 1–8

    work page 2022

  20. [21]

    Specification-Guided Reinforcement Learning,

    S. Bansal, “Specification-Guided Reinforcement Learning,” inStatic Analysis, G. Singh and C. Urban, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2022, pp. 3–9

    work page 2022

  21. [22]

    Reward Machines: Exploiting Reward Function Structure in Rein- forcement Learning,

    R. T. Icarte, T. Q. Klassen, R. A. Valenzano, and S. A. McIlraith, “Reward Machines: Exploiting Reward Function Structure in Rein- forcement Learning,”CoRR, vol. abs/2010.03950, 2020

    work page arXiv 2010

  22. [23]

    Monitoring temporal properties of contin- uous signals,

    O. Maler and D. Nickovic, “Monitoring temporal properties of contin- uous signals,” inFormal Techniques, Modelling and Analysis of Timed and Fault-Tolerant Systems, Y . Lakhnech and S. Yovine, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2004, pp. 152–166

    work page 2004

  23. [24]

    Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals,

    A. Donz ´e and O. Maler, “Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals,” inFormal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems, K. Chatterjee and T. A. Henzinger, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010, pp. 92–106

    work page 2010

  24. [25]

    Robust online monitoring of signal temporal logic,

    J. V . Deshmukh, A. Donz ´e, S. Ghosh, X. Jin, G. Juniwal, and S. A. Seshia, “Robust online monitoring of signal temporal logic,”Formal Methods in System Design, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 5–30, 2017

    work page 2017

  25. [26]

    Training agents to satisfy timed and untimed signal temporal logic specifications with reinforcement learning,

    N. Hamilton, P. K. Robinette, and T. T. Johnson, “Training agents to satisfy timed and untimed signal temporal logic specifications with reinforcement learning,” in20th International Conference on Software Engineering and Formal Methods (SEFM), Sep. 2022

    work page 2022

  26. [27]

    Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments,

    M. Towers, A. Kwiatkowski, J. Terry, J. U. Balis, G. D. Cola, T. Deleu, M. Goul ˜ao, A. Kallinteris, M. Krimmel, A. KG, R. Perez- Vicente, A. Pierr ´e, S. Schulhoff, J. J. Tai, H. Tan, and O. G. Younis, “Gymnasium: A standard interface for reinforcement learning environments,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2407. 17032

    work page 2024

  27. [28]

    Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,

    A. Raffin, A. Hill, A. Gleave, A. Kanervisto, M. Ernestus, and N. Dormann, “Stable-baselines3: Reliable reinforcement learning implementations,”Journal of Machine Learning Research, vol. 22, no. 268, pp. 1–8, 2021. [Online]. Available: http://jmlr.org/papers/ v22/20-1364.html

    work page 2021

  28. [29]

    Minigrid and miniworld: Modular and customizable reinforcement learning environments for goal-oriented tasks, 2023

    M. Chevalier-Boisvert, B. Dai, M. Towers, R. de Lazcano, L. Willems, S. Lahlou, S. Pal, P. S. Castro, and J. Terry, “Minigrid & miniworld: Modular & customizable reinforcement learning environments for goal-oriented tasks,”CoRR, vol. abs/2306.13831, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  29. [30]

    Cart Pole,

    The Farama Foundation - Cart Pole, “Cart Pole,” 2023, 2024-10-08. APPENDIX TABLE III: PPO Training Hyperparameters Hyperparameter Value Total Timesteps 5×10 5 Learning Rate (α) 3×10 −4 Rollout Steps (n steps ) 2048 Batch Size 64 Optimization Epochs (n epochs) 10 Discount Factor (γ) 0.99 GAE Lambda (λ) 0.95 Clip Range (ε) 0.2 Network Architecture [256, 256]

    work page 2023