pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.20428 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-22 · 💻 cs.RO

Lexicographic Minimum-Violation Motion Planning using Signal Temporal Logic

Patrick Halder , Lothar Kiltz , Hannes Homburger , Johannes Reuter , Matthias Althoff This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 00:08 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO
keywords signal temporal logicmotion planninglexicographic optimizationminimum-violationmodel predictive path integralautonomous vehiclesrobustness measure
0
0 comments X

The pith

Non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting turn lexicographic STL optimization into a single scalar problem.

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

This paper seeks to make minimum-violation motion planning practical when specifications have strict priorities that cannot all be satisfied at once. It converts the hard lexicographic ordering into one scalar cost by quantizing and bit-shifting the individual violation measures from signal temporal logic. A standard single-objective solver can then find plans that respect the order of importance. The work also provides a new way to measure how much a predicate is violated in both space and time. This matters for autonomous systems that must choose which rules to bend least when conflicts arise.

Core claim

The authors transform the multi-objective lexicographic optimization problem into a single-objective scalar optimization problem using non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting. They extend a deterministic model predictive path integral solver to handle optimization without quadratic input cost. A novel predicate-robustness measure is introduced that combines spatial and temporal violations. This yields an interpretable and scalable approach for lexicographic STL minimum-violation motion planning.

What carries the argument

Non-uniform quantization with bit-shifting to encode priority levels into a single scalar cost

If this is right

  • The single-objective framework becomes sufficient for handling prioritized specification violations.
  • The MPPI solver can now address problems lacking a quadratic input cost term.
  • Plans can be generated that minimize violations in a priority-respecting manner efficiently.
  • The combined robustness measure allows better quantification of specification breaches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar quantization methods might help in other domains requiring lexicographic preferences, such as resource allocation.
  • The scalability claims suggest potential for use in high-dimensional state spaces typical of vehicle planning.
  • One could test whether the bit-shifting approach generalizes to continuous priority weights beyond discrete orders.

Load-bearing premise

The quantization and bit-shifting steps preserve the original lexicographic order of violations without major distortion in the cost landscape.

What would settle it

If a direct lexicographic optimizer produces a different trajectory than the quantized scalar version on the same set of conflicting specifications, the transformation would be shown to alter the solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.20428 by Hannes Homburger, Johannes Reuter, Lothar Kiltz, Matthias Althoff, Patrick Halder.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIGURE 1: An overtaking scenario involving a broken-down vehicle and five [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIGURE 2: Overview of the motion planning framework. Figure derived [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIGURE 3: Example visualizations of predicate robustness and cost [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIGURE 4: Visualization of decay rules and example solution of the proposed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: illustrates the average violation error ε¯viol aggregated across all scenarios for different interval distribution strategies. As the total number of intervals increases, the average violation error decreases significantly across all strategies. This confirms that a finer discretization effectively mitigates the influence of order relaxation and order inversion. Also, the results show that even with a limi… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIGURE 7: Planning results of the CommonRoad scenario. (a) Scenario at four MPC iterations, including the planned trajectory, sampled trajectories, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIGURE 9: Comparison of robustness measures in the CommonRoad [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIGURE 8: Comparison of robustness measures for the running example. (a) 0 10 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Motion planning for autonomous vehicles often requires satisfying multiple conditionally conflicting specifications. In situations where not all specifications can be met simultaneously, minimum-violation motion planning maintains system operation by minimizing violations of specifications in accordance with their priorities. Signal temporal logic (STL) provides a formal language for rigorously defining these specifications and enables the quantitative evaluation of their violations. However, a total ordering of specifications yields a lexicographic optimization problem, which is typically computationally expensive to solve using standard methods. We address this problem by transforming the multi-objective lexicographic optimization problem into a single-objective scalar optimization problem using non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting. Specifically, we extend a deterministic model predictive path integral (MPPI) solver to efficiently solve optimization problems without quadratic input cost. Additionally, a novel predicate-robustness measure that combines spatial and temporal violations is introduced. Our results show that the proposed method offers an interpretable and scalable solution for lexicographic STL minimum-violation motion planning within a single-objective solver framework.

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 paper claims to address lexicographic minimum-violation motion planning for autonomous vehicles with multiple conflicting STL specifications by converting the multi-objective problem into a single scalar objective via non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting. It extends deterministic MPPI to solve the resulting optimization without quadratic input costs and introduces a novel predicate-robustness measure combining spatial and temporal violations, claiming the result is interpretable and scalable.

Significance. If the quantization and bit-shifting transformation rigorously preserves strict lexicographic priority (including under the new robustness measure and MPPI sampling), the work would provide a practical single-objective framework for prioritized STL planning, extending MPPI in a useful way and potentially enabling more efficient handling of complex, conditionally conflicting specifications in real-time autonomous systems.

major comments (2)
  1. [Method (transformation and scalar optimization)] The central reduction (described in the abstract and method) converts lexicographic ordering to a scalar via non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting but provides no explicit bound relating quantization granularity, bit-shift amounts, the range of the predicate-robustness measure, or MPPI importance-weight variance to guarantee that the maximum contribution of any lower-priority term is strictly less than the minimum of the next higher-priority term. This is load-bearing for the main claim, as the scalar landscape could otherwise admit trajectories trading small high-priority violations for large low-priority gains.
  2. [Results and evaluation] The abstract asserts that results demonstrate an interpretable and scalable solution, yet the provided description contains no validation details, baseline comparisons, quantitative metrics on ordering preservation, or analysis of artifacts from the new robustness measure inside MPPI sampling. This leaves the performance claims unsupported.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Preliminaries and definitions] Clarify the exact definition and semantics of the novel predicate-robustness measure relative to standard STL robustness to prevent notation confusion.
  2. [MPPI extension] The abstract mentions extending MPPI 'to efficiently solve optimization problems without quadratic input cost'; ensure the modified cost function and sampling procedure are fully specified with pseudocode or equations.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the thoughtful and constructive review. We address each major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to strengthen the presentation of the transformation guarantees and the empirical validation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Method (transformation and scalar optimization)] The central reduction (described in the abstract and method) converts lexicographic ordering to a scalar via non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting but provides no explicit bound relating quantization granularity, bit-shift amounts, the range of the predicate-robustness measure, or MPPI importance-weight variance to guarantee that the maximum contribution of any lower-priority term is strictly less than the minimum of the next higher-priority term. This is load-bearing for the main claim, as the scalar landscape could otherwise admit trajectories trading small high-priority violations for large low-priority gains.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit bound is necessary to rigorously support the claim that the scalarization preserves strict lexicographic priority. The current manuscript motivates the non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting approach but does not derive the required separation condition accounting for the new predicate-robustness measure and MPPI importance-weight variance. In the revision we will add a formal lemma (with proof) in Section III that relates the quantization step size, the number of bits shifted per priority level, the known bounds on the combined spatial-temporal robustness, and a conservative upper bound on MPPI weight variance to guarantee that the contribution of any lower-priority term is strictly smaller than the smallest possible increment from the next higher-priority term. This will be accompanied by a practical guideline for selecting the bit-shift amounts given the expected range of robustness values. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Results and evaluation] The abstract asserts that results demonstrate an interpretable and scalable solution, yet the provided description contains no validation details, baseline comparisons, quantitative metrics on ordering preservation, or analysis of artifacts from the new robustness measure inside MPPI sampling. This leaves the performance claims unsupported.

    Authors: The full manuscript contains a results section with autonomous-vehicle simulation scenarios that illustrate the method. However, we acknowledge that the current presentation lacks explicit quantitative metrics on lexicographic ordering fidelity, direct baseline comparisons, and targeted analysis of how the combined predicate-robustness measure interacts with MPPI sampling. In the revised version we will expand the evaluation to include: (i) a baseline comparison against a weighted-sum STL planner and a lexicographic optimizer using sequential quadratic programming, (ii) a metric that counts the frequency with which lower-priority specifications override higher-priority ones across Monte-Carlo trials, and (iii) an ablation study isolating the effect of the new robustness measure on sample efficiency and trajectory quality. Additional figures will be added to demonstrate interpretability of the scalarized cost landscape. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; method is a direct proposal of new scalarization and robustness measure.

full rationale

The paper proposes a concrete algorithmic transformation (non-uniform quantization + bit-shifting) to convert lexicographic STL optimization into a scalar MPPI objective, together with a new predicate-robustness definition that combines spatial and temporal terms. These steps are presented as constructive engineering choices rather than derived from prior fitted parameters or self-referential definitions. No equation reduces a claimed prediction back to its own inputs by construction, and the central claims rest on the explicit definitions of the quantization scheme and the novel robustness function rather than on load-bearing self-citations or ansatzes imported from the authors' prior work. The derivation is therefore self-contained as a proposed method.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The method relies on assumptions about quantization preserving order and introduces a new robustness measure; no free parameters explicitly fitted but design choices act as such.

free parameters (2)
  • quantization levels
    Non-uniform quantization parameters chosen to encode priorities.
  • bit-shift amounts
    Bit shifts to combine objectives into scalar.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The lexicographic order can be preserved by non-uniform quantization and bit-shifting in the optimization objective.
    Assumed in the transformation to single-objective problem.
invented entities (1)
  • predicate-robustness measure no independent evidence
    purpose: Combines spatial and temporal violations for STL predicates.
    New measure introduced without external validation mentioned.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5480 in / 1283 out tokens · 44513 ms · 2026-05-10T00:08:03.841540+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

135 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Formal methods to comply with rules of the road in autonomous driving: State of the art and grand challenges,

    N. Mehdipour, M. Althoff, R. Duintjer Tebbens, and C. Belta, “Formal methods to comply with rules of the road in autonomous driving: State of the art and grand challenges,”Automatica, vol. 152, pp. 1–15, 2023

    2023

  2. [2]

    No more traffic tickets: A tutorial to ensure traffic-rule compliance of automated vehicles,

    M. Althoff, S. Maierhofer, G. W ¨ursching, Y . Lin, F. Lercher, and R. Stolz, “No more traffic tickets: A tutorial to ensure traffic-rule compliance of automated vehicles,”Proc. of the IEEE, pp. 1–30, 2025

    2025

  3. [3]

    Trajec- tory planning with signal temporal logic costs using deterministic path integral optimization,

    P. Halder, H. Homburger, L. Kiltz, J. Reuter, and M. Althoff, “Trajec- tory planning with signal temporal logic costs using deterministic path integral optimization,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2025, pp. 4221–4228

    2025

  4. [4]

    Formalising and monitoring traffic rules for autonomous vehicles in Isabelle/HOL,

    A. Rizaldi, J. Keinholz, M. Huber, J. Feldle, F. Immler, M. Althoff, E. Hilgendorf, and T. Nipkow, “Formalising and monitoring traffic rules for autonomous vehicles in Isabelle/HOL,” inProc. of the Int. Conf. on Integrated Formal Methods, 2017, pp. 50–66

    2017

  5. [5]

    Formalizing traffic rules for machine interpretability,

    K. Esterle, L. Gressenbuch, and A. Knoll, “Formalizing traffic rules for machine interpretability,” inProc. of the IEEE Connected and Automated Vehicles Symposium, 2020, pp. 1–7

    2020

  6. [6]

    Minimum-violation LTL planning with conflicting specifications,

    J. T ˚umov´a, L. I. Reyes Castro, S. Karaman, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus, “Minimum-violation LTL planning with conflicting specifications,” in Proc. of the American Control Conf., 2013, pp. 200–205

    2013

  7. [7]

    Incremental sampling-based algorithm for minimum- violation motion planning,

    L. I. Reyes Castro, P. Chaudhari, J. T ˚umov´a, S. Karaman, E. Frazzoli, and D. Rus, “Incremental sampling-based algorithm for minimum- violation motion planning,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2013, pp. 3217–3224

    2013

  8. [8]

    Safe reinforcement learning with policy-guided planning for autonomous driving,

    J. Rong and N. Luan, “Safe reinforcement learning with policy-guided planning for autonomous driving,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Mechatronics and Automation, 2020, pp. 320–326

    2020

  9. [9]

    On the design of penalty structures for minimum-violation LTL motion planning,

    H. Schl ¨uter, P. Schillinger, and M. B ¨urger, “On the design of penalty structures for minimum-violation LTL motion planning,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2018, pp. 4153–4158

    2018

  10. [10]

    Minimum- violation scLTL motion planning for mobility-on-demand,

    C.-I. Vasile, J. T˚umov´a, S. Karaman, C. Belta, and D. Rus, “Minimum- violation scLTL motion planning for mobility-on-demand,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2017, pp. 1481– 1488

    2017

  11. [11]

    Specification-based mon- itoring of cyber-physical systems: A survey on theory, tools and applications,

    E. Bartocci, J. Deshmukh, A. Donz ´e, G. Fainekos, O. Maler, D. Ni ˇckovi´c, and S. Sankaranarayanan, “Specification-based mon- itoring of cyber-physical systems: A survey on theory, tools and applications,” inLectures on Runtime Verification: Introductory and Advanced Topics, 2018, pp. 135–175

    2018

  12. [12]

    Formalization of interstate traffic rules in temporal logic,

    S. Maierhofer, A.-K. Rettinger, E. C. Mayer, and M. Althoff, “Formalization of interstate traffic rules in temporal logic,” inProc. of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2020, pp. 752–759

    2020

  13. [13]

    Formalization of intersection traffic rules in temporal logic,

    S. Maierhofer, P. Moosbrugger, and M. Althoff, “Formalization of intersection traffic rules in temporal logic,” inProc. of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2022, pp. 1135–1144

    2022

  14. [14]

    Temporal logic formalization of marine traffic rules,

    H. Krasowski and M. Althoff, “Temporal logic formalization of marine traffic rules,” inProc. of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2021, pp. 186–192

    2021

  15. [15]

    Digitizing traffic rules to guide automated vehicle trajectory planning,

    R. Shi and X. Wang, “Digitizing traffic rules to guide automated vehicle trajectory planning,”Expert Systems with Applications, vol. 272, pp. 1–22, 2025

    2025

  16. [16]

    Encoding and monitoring responsibility sensitive safety rules for automated vehicles in signal temporal logic,

    M. Hekmatnejad, S. Yaghoubi, A. Dokhanchi, H. B. Amor, A. Shri- vastava, L. Karam, and G. Fainekos, “Encoding and monitoring responsibility sensitive safety rules for automated vehicles in signal temporal logic,” inProc. of the ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Formal Methods and Models for System Design, 2019, pp. 1–11

    2019

  17. [17]

    Specifying safety of autonomous vehicles in signal temporal logic,

    N. Ar ´echiga, “Specifying safety of autonomous vehicles in signal temporal logic,” inProc. of the IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium, 2019, pp. 58–63

    2019

  18. [18]

    Lexicographic mixed-integer motion planning with STL constraints,

    P. Halder, F. Christ, and M. Althoff, “Lexicographic mixed-integer motion planning with STL constraints,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2023, pp. 1361–1367

    2023

  19. [19]

    STL: Surprisingly tricky logic (for system validation),

    H. C. Siu, K. Leahy, and M. Mann, “STL: Surprisingly tricky logic (for system validation),” inProc. of the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2023, pp. 8613–8620

    2023

  20. [20]

    STL: Still tricky logic (for system validation, even when showing your work),

    I. Hurley, R. Paleja, A. Suh, J. D. Pe ˜na, and H. C. Siu, “STL: Still tricky logic (for system validation, even when showing your work),” inProc. of the Conf. on Neural Information Processing Systems, 2024, pp. 119 099–119 122. 16 VOLUME XX, 2026

    2024

  21. [21]

    Inference of multi-class STL specifications for multi-label human-robot encounters,

    A. Linard, I. Torre, I. Leite, and J. T ˚umov´a, “Inference of multi-class STL specifications for multi-label human-robot encounters,” inProc. of the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2022, pp. 1305–1311

    2022

  22. [22]

    Hand it to me formally! Data-driven control for human-robot handovers with signal temporal logic,

    P. Khanna, J. Fredberg, M. Bj¨orkman, C. Smith, and A. Linard, “Hand it to me formally! Data-driven control for human-robot handovers with signal temporal logic,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 9039–9046, 2024

    2024

  23. [23]

    Formal methods for control synthesis: An optimization perspective,

    C. Belta and S. Sadraddini, “Formal methods for control synthesis: An optimization perspective,”Annual Review of Control, Robotics, and Autonomous Systems, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 115–140, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    Mixed-integer programming for signal temporal logic with fewer binary variables,

    V . Kurtz and H. Lin, “Mixed-integer programming for signal temporal logic with fewer binary variables,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2635–2640, 2022

    2022

  25. [25]

    Temporal robustness of temporal logic specifications: Analysis and control design,

    A. Rodionova, L. Lindemann, M. Morari, and G. Pappas, “Temporal robustness of temporal logic specifications: Analysis and control design,”ACM Trans. on Embedded Computing Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1–44, 2022

    2022

  26. [26]

    Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals,

    A. Donz ´e and O. Maler, “Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals,” inProc. of the Int. Conf. on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems, 2010, pp. 92–106

    2010

  27. [27]

    Smooth operator: Control using the smooth robustness of temporal logic,

    Y . V . Pant, H. Abbas, and R. Mangharam, “Smooth operator: Control using the smooth robustness of temporal logic,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Control Technology and Applications, 2017, pp. 1235–1240

    2017

  28. [28]

    Fly-by-logic: Control of multi-drone fleets with temporal logic objectives,

    Y . V . Pant, H. Abbas, R. A. Quaye, and R. Mangharam, “Fly-by-logic: Control of multi-drone fleets with temporal logic objectives,” inProc. of the ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2018, pp. 186–197

    2018

  29. [29]

    Robust counterexample-guided optimization for planning from differentiable temporal logic,

    C. Dawson and C. Fan, “Robust counterexample-guided optimization for planning from differentiable temporal logic,” inProc. of the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2022, pp. 7205–7212

    2022

  30. [30]

    A smooth robustness measure of signal temporal logic for symbolic control,

    Y . Gilpin, V . Kurtz, and H. Lin, “A smooth robustness measure of signal temporal logic for symbolic control,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 241–246, 2021

    2021

  31. [31]

    Trajectory optimization for high-dimensional nonlinear systems under STL specifications,

    V . Kurtz and H. Lin, “Trajectory optimization for high-dimensional nonlinear systems under STL specifications,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 1429–1434, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Smooth robustness measures for symbolic control via signal temporal logic,

    S. Welikala, H. Lin, and P. J. Antsaklis, “Smooth robustness measures for symbolic control via signal temporal logic,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.09116, 2023

    work page arXiv 2023

  33. [33]

    Optimization with temporal and logical specifications via generalized mean-based smooth robustness measures,

    S. Uzun, P. Elango, P.-L. Garoche, and B. Acikmese, “Optimization with temporal and logical specifications via generalized mean-based smooth robustness measures,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.10996, 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  34. [34]

    Specifying user preferences using weighted signal temporal logic,

    N. Mehdipour, C.-I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “Specifying user preferences using weighted signal temporal logic,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 2006–2011, 2021

    2006

  35. [35]

    Preferences on partial satisfaction using weighted signal temporal logic specifications,

    G. A. Cardona and C.-I. Vasile, “Preferences on partial satisfaction using weighted signal temporal logic specifications,” inProc. of the European Control Conf., 2023, pp. 1–6

    2023

  36. [36]

    Weighted graph-based signal temporal logic inference using neural networks,

    N. Baharisangari, K. Hirota, R. Yan, A. Julius, and Z. Xu, “Weighted graph-based signal temporal logic inference using neural networks,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 2096–2101, 2022

    2096

  37. [37]

    Robust motion planning employing signal temporal logic,

    L. Lindemann and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Robust motion planning employing signal temporal logic,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2017, pp. 2950–2955

    2017

  38. [38]

    Control from signal temporal logic specifications with smooth cumulative quantitative semantics,

    I. Haghighi, N. Mehdipour, E. Bartocci, and C. Belta, “Control from signal temporal logic specifications with smooth cumulative quantitative semantics,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2019, pp. 4361–4366

    2019

  39. [39]

    Average-based robustness for continuous-time signal temporal logic,

    N. Mehdipour, C.-I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “Average-based robustness for continuous-time signal temporal logic,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2019, pp. 5312–5317

    2019

  40. [40]

    Arithmetic-geometric mean robustness for control from signal temporal logic specifications,

    ——, “Arithmetic-geometric mean robustness for control from signal temporal logic specifications,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2019, pp. 1690–1695

    2019

  41. [41]

    On robustness metrics for learning STL tasks,

    P. Varnai and D. V . Dimarogonas, “On robustness metrics for learning STL tasks,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2020, pp. 5394– 5399

    2020

  42. [42]

    ASTL: Accumulative signal temporal logic for IoT service monitoring,

    D. Zhao, Z. Zhou, Z. Cai, T. Long, S. Yangui, and X. Xue, “ASTL: Accumulative signal temporal logic for IoT service monitoring,” in Proc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Web Services, 2022, pp. 256–265

    2022

  43. [43]

    Minimum-violation velocity planning with temporal logic constraints,

    P. Halder and M. Althoff, “Minimum-violation velocity planning with temporal logic constraints,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2022, pp. 2520–2527

    2022

  44. [44]

    Model predictive robustness of signal temporal logic predicates,

    Y . Lin, H. Li, and M. Althoff, “Model predictive robustness of signal temporal logic predicates,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 12, pp. 8050–8057, 2023

    2023

  45. [45]

    Generalized mean robust- ness for signal temporal logic,

    N. Mehdipour, C.-I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “Generalized mean robust- ness for signal temporal logic,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 3, pp. 1949–1956, 2025

    1949

  46. [46]

    Temporal robustness of stochastic signals,

    L. Lindemann, A. Rodionova, and G. Pappas, “Temporal robustness of stochastic signals,” inProc. of the ACM Int. Conf. on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 2022, pp. 1–11

    2022

  47. [47]

    Combined left and right temporal robustness for control under STL specifications,

    A. Rodionova, L. Lindemann, M. Morari, and G. J. Pappas, “Combined left and right temporal robustness for control under STL specifications,” IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 7, pp. 619–624, 2023

    2023

  48. [48]

    Efficient STL control synthesis under asynchronous temporal robustness constraints,

    X. Yu, X. Yin, and L. Lindemann, “Efficient STL control synthesis under asynchronous temporal robustness constraints,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2023, pp. 6847–6854

    2023

  49. [49]

    Temporally robust multi- agent STL motion planning in continuous time,

    J. Verhagen, L. Lindemann, and J. T ˚umov´a, “Temporally robust multi- agent STL motion planning in continuous time,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2024, pp. 251–258

    2024

  50. [50]

    Sampling-based motion planning with temporal logic missions and spatial preferences,

    J. Karlsson, F. S. Barbosa, and J. T ˚umov´a, “Sampling-based motion planning with temporal logic missions and spatial preferences,”IFAC- PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 15 537–15 543, 2020

    2020

  51. [51]

    Encoding human driving styles in motion planning for autonomous vehicles,

    J. Karlsson, S. van Waveren, C. Pek, I. Torre, I. Leite, and J. T ˚umov´a, “Encoding human driving styles in motion planning for autonomous vehicles,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Robotics and Automation, 2021, pp. 1050–1056

    2021

  52. [52]

    Optimization-based motion planning and runtime monitoring for robotic agent with space and time tolerances,

    Z. Lin and J. S. Baras, “Optimization-based motion planning and runtime monitoring for robotic agent with space and time tolerances,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 1874–1879, 2020

    2020

  53. [53]

    Enhanced traffic rule monitoring using model-predictive and duration- aware robustness,

    F. Finkeldei, M. Wolf, J.-N. Weghorn, A. Pretschner, and M. Althoff, “Enhanced traffic rule monitoring using model-predictive and duration- aware robustness,” inProc. of the IEEE Int. Conf. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2025, pp. 1322–1329

    2025

  54. [54]

    Formal synthesis of control strategies for positive monotone systems,

    S. Sadraddini and C. Belta, “Formal synthesis of control strategies for positive monotone systems,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 64, no. 2, pp. 480–495, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    Autonomous vehicle decision-making and monitoring based on signal temporal logic and mixed-integer programming,

    Y . E. Sahin, R. Quirynen, and S. D. Cairano, “Autonomous vehicle decision-making and monitoring based on signal temporal logic and mixed-integer programming,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2020, pp. 454–459

    2020

  56. [56]

    A control architecture for provably- correct autonomous driving,

    E. Aasi, C. I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “A control architecture for provably- correct autonomous driving,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2021, pp. 2913–2918

    2021

  57. [57]

    Signal temporal logic planning with time-varying robustness,

    Y . Yuan, T. Quartz, and J. Liu, “Signal temporal logic planning with time-varying robustness,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 8, pp. 3015–3020, 2024

    2024

  58. [58]

    A two-level control algorithm for autonomous driving in urban environments,

    E. Aasi, M. Cai, C.-I. Vasile, and C. Belta, “A two-level control algorithm for autonomous driving in urban environments,”IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Transportation Systems, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 410–424, 2025

    2025

  59. [59]

    Time- robust control for STL specifications,

    A. Rodionova, L. Lindemann, M. Morari, and G. J. Pappas, “Time- robust control for STL specifications,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2021, pp. 572–579

    2021

  60. [60]

    Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifications: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods,

    K. Leung, N. Ar ´echiga, and M. Pavone, “Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifications: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods,”The Int. Journal of Robotics Research, vol. 42, no. 6, pp. 356–370, 2023

    2023

  61. [61]

    Resilient online planning for mobile robots with minimal relaxation of signal temporal logic specifications,

    A. T. Buyukkocak and D. Aksaray, “Resilient online planning for mobile robots with minimal relaxation of signal temporal logic specifications,”IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 10, no. 6, pp. 5935–5942, 2025

    2025

  62. [62]

    Succes- sive convexification for optimal control with signal temporal logic specifications,

    Y . Mao, B. Acikmese, P.-L. Garoche, and A. Chapoutot, “Succes- sive convexification for optimal control with signal temporal logic specifications,” inProc. of the ACM Int. Conf. on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 2022, pp. 1–7

    2022

  63. [63]

    A novel graph-based theory for convexification of mission-planning constraints and generative pre-trained trajectory optimization,

    T. Claudet, D. Martire, D. Losa, F. Sanfedino, and D. Alazard, “A novel graph-based theory for convexification of mission-planning constraints and generative pre-trained trajectory optimization,”IFAC Journal of Systems and Control, vol. 30, pp. 1–13, 2024

    2024

  64. [64]

    Takayama, K

    Y . Takayama, K. Hashimoto, and T. Ohtsuka, “STLCCP: Efficient convex optimization-based framework for signal temporal logic VOLUME XX, 2026 17 Halderet al.: Lexicographic Minimum-Violation Motion Planning using Signal Temporal Logic specifications,”IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control, vol. 70, no. 9, pp. 6064–6079, 2025

    2026

  65. [65]

    Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks,

    L. Lindemann and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 96–101, 2019

    2019

  66. [66]

    Barrier function based collaborative control of multiple robots under signal temporal logic tasks,

    ——, “Barrier function based collaborative control of multiple robots under signal temporal logic tasks,”IEEE Trans. on Control of Network Systems, vol. 7, no. 4, pp. 1916–1928, 2020

    1916

  67. [67]

    Barrier function-based model predictive control under signal temporal logic specifications,

    M. Charitidou and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Barrier function-based model predictive control under signal temporal logic specifications,” inProc. of the European Control Conf., 2021, pp. 734–739

    2021

  68. [68]

    Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving,

    W. Xiao, N. Mehdipour, A. Collin, A. Y . Bin-Nun, E. Frazzoli, R. D. Tebbens, and C. Belta, “Rule-based optimal control for autonomous driving,” inProc. of the ACM/IEEE Int. Conf. on Cyber-Physical Systems, 2021, pp. 143–154

    2021

  69. [69]

    Control barrier functions for nonholonomic systems under risk signal temporal logic specifications,

    L. Lindemann, G. J. Pappas, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Control barrier functions for nonholonomic systems under risk signal temporal logic specifications,” inProc. of the IEEE Conf. on Decision and Control, 2020, pp. 1422–1428

    2020

  70. [70]

    A formal control framework of autonomous vehicle for signal temporal logic tasks and obstacle avoidance,

    Z. Huang, W. Lan, and X. Yu, “A formal control framework of autonomous vehicle for signal temporal logic tasks and obstacle avoidance,”IEEE Trans. on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1930–1940, 2024

    1930

  71. [71]

    CBF-based motion planning for socially responsible robot navigation guaranteeing STL specification*,

    A. Ruo, L. Sabattini, and V . Villani, “CBF-based motion planning for socially responsible robot navigation guaranteeing STL specification*,” inProc. of the European Control Conf., 2024, pp. 122–127

    2024

  72. [72]

    Continuous-time control synthesis under nested signal temporal logic specifications,

    P. Yu, X. Tan, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Continuous-time control synthesis under nested signal temporal logic specifications,”IEEE Trans. on Robotics, vol. 40, pp. 2272–2286, 2024

    2024

  73. [73]

    Formal methods for robot motion planning with time and space constraints,

    F. S. Barbosa, J. Karlsson, P. Tajvar, and J. T ˚umov´a, “Formal methods for robot motion planning with time and space constraints,” inProc. of the Int. Conf. on Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems, 2021, pp. 1–14

    2021

  74. [74]

    Real-time RRT* with signal temporal logic preferences,

    A. Linard, I. Torre, E. Bartoli, A. Sleat, I. Leite, and J. T ˚umov´a, “Real-time RRT* with signal temporal logic preferences,” inProc. of the IEEE/RSJ Int. Conf. on Intelligent Robots and Systems, 2023, pp. 8621–8627

    2023

  75. [75]

    Cooperative sampling-based motion planning under signal temporal logic specifica- tions,

    M. Sewlia, C. K. Verginis, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Cooperative sampling-based motion planning under signal temporal logic specifica- tions,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2023, pp. 2697–2702

    2023

  76. [76]

    Sampling-based planning under STL specifications: A forward invariance approach,

    G. Marchesini, S. Liu, L. Lindemann, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Sampling-based planning under STL specifications: A forward invariance approach,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2506.10739, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  77. [77]

    Path integral control endowed robot planning under spatiotemporal logic specifications,

    P. V ´arnai, “Path integral control endowed robot planning under spatiotemporal logic specifications,” Ph.D. dissertation, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 2022

    2022

  78. [78]

    Recurrent neural network controllers for signal temporal logic specifications subject to safety constraints,

    W. Liu, N. Mehdipour, and C. Belta, “Recurrent neural network controllers for signal temporal logic specifications subject to safety constraints,”IEEE Control Systems Letters, vol. 6, pp. 91–96, 2022

    2022

  79. [79]

    Semi-supervised trajectory-feedback controller synthesis for signal temporal logic specifications,

    K. Leung and M. Pavone, “Semi-supervised trajectory-feedback controller synthesis for signal temporal logic specifications,” inProc. of the American Control Conf., 2022, pp. 178–185

    2022

  80. [80]

    Signal temporal logic neural predictive control,

    Y . Meng and C. Fan, “Signal temporal logic neural predictive control,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 11, pp. 7719–7726, 2023

    2023

Showing first 80 references.