Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 31 references

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge.

T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. The mark states how deep the mechanical check went, never who wrote it. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · glm-5.2

Learned tubes turn complex temporal logic tasks into bounded tracking problems

2026-07-09 19:11 UTC pith:QFTD6HGN

load-bearing objection Solid framework with a real gap between formal verification claims and what's actually demonstrated the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07136 v1 pith:QFTD6HGN submitted 2026-07-08 cs.RO

Learning Spatiotemporal Tubes for Full Class of Signal Temporal Logic Tasks for Control of Unknown Systems under Input Constraints

Ahan Basu , Ratnangshu Das , Soumyodipta Nath , Siyuan Liu , Pushpak Jagtap This is my paper
classification cs.RO
keywords constraintscontrolcorrespondinginputtubesystemtemporaltrajectory
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper addresses a long-standing tension in robot control: how do you guarantee that a physical system with unknown dynamics and limited actuators will satisfy a complex, time-sensitive task specification? The authors focus on Signal Temporal Logic (STL), a formal language for expressing tasks like visit region A within 10 seconds, always avoid region B, and eventually reach goal C. Satisfying arbitrary STL formulas under realistic constraints is computationally hard, typically requiring expensive online optimization or accurate system models. The paper's central move is to decouple the problem into two stages. First, it learns a time-varying safe region called a Spatiotemporal Tube (STT), a moving ball in state space whose center and radius are parameterized by a physics-informed neural network. The network is trained so that any trajectory staying inside this ball is guaranteed to satisfy the STL specification. The tube's shape is constrained by Lipschitz bounds tied to the system's actuator limits, ensuring the tube does not move faster than the robot can follow. Second, the paper derives a closed-form, model-free control law that keeps the system trajectory inside the learned tube while respecting input bounds. The key result is that if two feasibility conditions linking the tube's speed to the system's velocity and torque limits hold, the system provably remains within the tube and therefore satisfies the STL specification. The approach handles the full class of STL formulas, not just fragments, and extends to multi-agent scenarios with inter-agent collision avoidance.

Core claim

The paper shows that STL satisfaction for unknown Euler-Lagrange systems under input constraints can be reduced to a geometric tracking problem. By parameterizing a time-varying ball (the STT) with a PINN whose Lipschitz constants are coupled to actuator limits, and by verifying via a Lipschitz-based condition that the trained tube encapsulates the STL specification over continuous time, the authors prove that a simple bounded closed-form controller suffices to keep the system inside the tube, thereby guaranteeing STL satisfaction without online optimization or knowledge of system dynamics.

What carries the argument

A physics-informed neural network parameterizes the center and radius of a time-varying ball. The STL robustness metric serves as a training loss, ensuring the ball encloses only specification-satisfying trajectories. Automatic differentiation enforces Lipschitz bounds on the tube's evolution, coupling tube speed to actuator limits. A Lipschitz-based validity condition certifies the trained tube over the continuous horizon. A two-stage controller, using a bounded transformation function and exponentially decaying funnel constraints, provides a closed-form control law with provable input bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The feasibility conditions require that the tube's Lipschitz constants, which govern how fast the tube center and radius can change, are chosen small enough that the system's actuators can track the tube. The paper does not provide an automated procedure to determine, before training, whether a given STL specification admits feasible constants under a given actuator budget. If the specification demands rapid transitions between distant regions, the required tube speed may be,

What would settle it

If an STL specification requires visiting two regions separated by a large distance within a short time interval, the Lipschitz constant on the tube center must be large enough to move the tube across that distance in time. If that required constant exceeds what the actuator limits allow via feasibility condition (17), the tube is untrackable and the guarantee fails. The paper's case studies all involve specifications where manual selection of feasible constants was possible.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. This paper proposes a Physics-informed Neural Spatiotemporal Tube (PINSTT) framework for satisfying the full class of Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications for unknown Euler-Lagrange systems under input constraints. The tube center and radius are parameterized by a PINN whose training loss encodes the STL robustness metric. Theorem 3.3 provides a Lipschitz-based condition to verify that the trained tube satisfies the STL specification over the continuous time horizon. Theorem 4.2 provides a closed-form, approximation-free control law that keeps the system within the tube while respecting input bounds, using a two-stage backstepping-like design with a prescribed performance funnel. The framework is extended to multi-agent formation control and validated on a mobile robot, quadrotor, 7-DOF manipulator, and multi-agent simulation.

Significance. The combination of full STL support, unknown dynamics, input constraints, and closed-form control in a single framework is a meaningful contribution to the STL control literature. The use of PINNs with automatic differentiation to enforce Lipschitz bounds on tube evolution is a creative approach that avoids the SMT-based synthesis of prior STT work [3, 4]. The microsecond-level online control synthesis times reported in Table 2 are practically attractive. The hardware experiments (Agile LIMO, Franka FR3) add empirical credibility. However, the formal verification guarantee — the paper's central differentiator — is not instantiated in any experiment, which limits the significance of the theoretical contribution as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. Theorem 3.3's verification condition η̂ + Lε ≤ 0 depends on L_ρ, the Lipschitz constant of the STL robustness function ρ_φ. The paper cites [1] for the existence of L_ρ but never computes or bounds it for any of the four case studies or four benchmark tasks. Without L_ρ, one cannot compute L = max{L_r, sqrt(L_μ² + L_ρ²(L_c² + L_r²))}, and without L, one cannot verify η̂ + Lε ≤ 0. The introduction (Section 1) explicitly states 'we verify the trained PINSTT over the continuous horizon on the fly using a Lipschitz-based validity condition,' but no case study reports this verification. The experiments demonstrate empirical STL satisfaction, not formal verification. This gap is load-bearing because the paper's central claim — formal correctness guarantees for the full STL class — rests on Theorem 3.3, which is conditional on a constant that is asserted to exist but never instantiated. The作者s应
  2. The bounded transformation function Ψ, which is central to both the control law (Eq. 16) and the proof of Theorem 4.2, is cited from [6] but not defined in the paper. The proof of Theorem 4.2 relies on specific properties of Ψ (boundedness, the limit behavior as ε_v → ±1, and the bound on |v̇_r| ≤ a_r). Without stating these properties, the controller proof cannot be independently verified. The paper should either include the definition of Ψ and its key properties as a lemma, or at minimum state the specific properties used in the proof.
  3. Section 7 (Multi-Agent Extension) is quite brief and lacks formal rigor compared to the single-agent development. The paper states that 'an additional robustness metric corresponding to the global task... ensures the tubes do not collide with each other,' but no theorem or formal condition is provided guaranteeing inter-agent collision avoidance. The multi-agent simulation in Section 7 uses X̃_i (agents as dynamic obstacles) in the STL specification, but it is unclear whether the PINSTT training for each agent accounts for the time-varying positions of other agents or assumes fixed trajectories. This should be clarified, and ideally a formal collision-avoidance guarantee should be stated.
  4. The feasibility conditions (17) and (18) couple the tube's Lipschitz constants (L_c, L_r) to the system's velocity and torque limits, but the paper provides no automated procedure to verify that a given STL specification admits feasible L_c, L_r before training. In Section 5.3, for example, L_c = 1.5 and L_r = 0.5 are stated as chosen values without explaining how they were determined to be compatible with the STL specification's temporal requirements. If the STL specification requires rapid transitions between distant regions, the required L_c may exceed what the actuator limits allow. The paper should discuss how to check feasibility of L_c, L_r selection a priori, or at minimum acknowledge this as a limitation.
minor comments (7)
  1. Section 5.1: The STL specification uses time units in seconds (e.g., □[0,280]), but the velocity limit is 0.15 m/s. The workspace appears to be roughly 3m × 3m. The 360-second mission horizon seems very long for this workspace; please clarify the time units or justify the mission duration.
  2. Table 1: The symbol '7' is used to denote 'No' and '3' to denote 'Partial/Yes' in the qualitative comparison, but this is not explained in the table caption. A legend should be added.
  3. Table 2: For stlfrag-1 and stlfrag-2, PPC reports N/A for stlcg tasks but actual times for fragment tasks. It would help to note that PPC cannot handle the full STL class (consistent with Table 1) rather than just showing N/A.
  4. Equation (13): The reference velocity v_r(t) uses a normalized error e_x but the expression mixes v_r and v (the latter defined as v ∈ R⁺). The notation is slightly confusing; consider clarifying that v is a scalar gain.
  5. Section 3.1, Algorithm 1: Line 9 states 'display: Specification can not be achieved with maximum control.' This is an informal diagnostic message; the algorithm should formally characterize when this condition indicates infeasibility versus a training failure.
  6. The paper uses both 'Euler-Lagrange' and 'EulerLagrange' (without hyphen) inconsistently. The abstract uses 'EulerLagrange' while the body uses 'Euler-Lagrange'.
  7. Figure 5 references four benchmark tasks (stlcg-1, stlfrag-1, stlcg-2, stlfrag-2) but the figure caption does not describe what the trajectories show or how to interpret the plots. Axis labels and legends would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity. The controller and bounded transformation function are imported from the authors' prior work [6] via self-citation, but the central claim (Theorem 4.2) is independently proven via a contradiction-based funnel argument, and the PINN-based tube synthesis is novel relative to the cited components.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Stage II, Eq. (16) and Remark 4.1]
    "τ(t) = −diag(Ψ(ε_v))τ̄ ... The map Ψ : R^n → [−1, 1]^n is a bounded transformation function, defined in [6, Section 3.3], that ensures the control remains within admissible limits."

    The bounded transformation function Ψ is central to both the control law (Eq. 16) and the proof of Theorem 4.2, yet it is not defined in the paper — it is imported from the authors' own prior work [6]. The proof of Theorem 4.2 relies on properties of Ψ (specifically that it saturates to ±1 at the funnel boundary) without restating them. However, this is a standard self-citation pattern: the cited work [6] is a methods paper that derives Ψ independently, and the present paper's contribution (PINN-based tube synthesis + input-constraint coupling) is distinct from the controller component. The proof of Theorem 4.2 is otherwise self-contained: it uses a contradiction argument on the funnel dynamics that does not reduce to the cited result by construction. The self-citation is load-bearing for

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain has two main links: (1) Theorem 3.3 certifies the trained PINSTT satisfies the STL specification over the continuous horizon, and (2) Theorem 4.2 certifies the controller keeps the system inside the tube. Link (2) is proven independently via a standard contradiction-based funnel argument — the proof does not reduce to the cited controller [6] by construction; it uses properties of Ψ but derives the invariance result from first principles. Link (1) uses a Lipschitz-based verification condition (η̂ + Lε ≤ 0) that is derived in the paper itself (Theorem 3.3 proof), though it depends on L_ρ whose existence is cited from [1] but never instantiated in experiments. The bounded transformation function Ψ (from [6]) is the only load-bearing self-citation, but it is a controller design choice rather than a circular derivation. No 'prediction' or 'first-principles result' is equivalent to its inputs by construction. The score of 2 reflects the minor self-citation for Ψ without independent derivation in this paper, but the central claims are independently proven.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The framework introduces several user-tunable parameters (L_c, L_r, loss weights, funnel parameters) that are manually selected per case study. The core mathematical axioms (Lipschitz continuity of STL robustness, EL system boundedness) are standard domain assumptions. The transformation function Psi is treated as a black-box axiom via citation.

free parameters (6)
  • L_c (tube center Lipschitz bound) = 0.08, 1.0, 1.5 (case-dependent)
    User-defined bound on tube center velocity, manually chosen in each case study to satisfy feasibility condition (17).
  • L_r (tube radius Lipschitz bound) = 0.01, 0.5, 0.5 (case-dependent)
    User-defined bound on tube radius rate of change, manually chosen.
  • w_i (loss weights) = not specified
    Weights for the four sub-loss terms in Eq. (11), values not given in the paper.
  • delta (robustness margin) = not specified
    Small positive quantity in loss L2 to ensure strict inequality, value not stated.
  • r_d (minimum tube radius) = not specified
    User-defined lower bound on tube radius in condition (5a), value not given.
  • mu_v, p_v, q_v (funnel parameters) = case-dependent
    Funnel decay rate, initial width, and steady-state limit for velocity tracking error, chosen per case study.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption STL robustness function rho_phi is Lipschitz continuous with respect to the signal
    Invoked in Section 3.2, cited to [1], required for Theorem 3.3's verification condition.
  • domain assumption Euler-Lagrange system parameters satisfy boundedness Assumptions 1-4
    Assumptions 1-4 in Section 2.1 provide bounds on disturbance, mass matrix inverse, Coriolis/gravity terms. These are standard for EL systems but are unverified for the specific hardware used.
  • domain assumption The bounded transformation function Psi maps errors to bounded control inputs
    Central to the control law in Eq. (16), but defined only via citation to [6, Section 3.3], not derived in this paper.
invented entities (1)
  • Physics-informed Neural Spatiotemporal Tube (PINSTT) independent evidence
    purpose: Time-varying ball parameterized by PINN whose center and radius encode STL satisfaction
    The tube is a constructive entity with a falsifiable verification condition (Theorem 3.3) and is validated on hardware. It is not a postulated physical object but a computational construct.

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 22623 in / 2692 out tokens · 365704 ms · 2026-07-09T19:11:22.723050+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

This paper presents a Spatiotemporal Tube (STT)-based control framework for general unknown nonlinear Euler-Lagrange (EL) systems subject to input constraints, with the objective of satisfying Signal Temporal Logic (STL) specifications, where confinement of the system trajectory within the STT guarantees the satisfaction of the corresponding STL task. For both single and multi-agent scenarios, the STT corresponding to each agent is modeled as a time-varying ball, whose center and radius are jointly parameterized using a physics-informed neural network (PINN). The robustness metric associated with the STL specification corresponding to the agents is incorporated into the training process as a loss function, enabling the learned tube to encode task-level temporal requirements. For a multi-agent scenario, we introduce an additional robustness metric corresponding to the global task, which, when satisfied, ensures the tubes do not collide with each other. To ensure that the system trajectory remains within the learned STT and thereby satisfies the local and global STL specifications, we propose a control strategy that explicitly accounts for input constraints. In particular, a closed-form control law is developed to keep the trajectory inside the tube while regulating the motion of the tube by enforcing bounds on its evolution depending on the input constraints of the system. The proposed approach has been validated over several case studies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07136 by Ahan Basu, Pushpak Jagtap, Ratnangshu Das, Siyuan Liu, Soumyodipta Nath.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Mobile robot (Agile LIMO) positioning at different timestamps and the constructed STT. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Control inputs remain within bounds under nominal (left) and payload-variation (right) conditions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quadrotor trajectory (left). Velocity and control inputs remain within the prescribed bounds (right). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: 7-DOF Franka Research 3 Manipulator: (a) The end-effector reaches [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparison of the proposed PINSTT framework with existing STT, MILP, MPC, CBF, and PPC-based [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multi-agent formation-preserving navigation. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_6.png] view at source ↗

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

31 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Lipschitz Continuity of Signal Temporal Logic Robustness Measures: Synthesizing Control Barrier Functions from One Expert Demonstration

    Prithvi Akella, Apurva Badithela, Richard M Murray, and Aaron D Ames. Lipschitz continuity of signal temporal logic robustness measures: Synthesizing control barrier functions from one expert demonstration. arXiv preprint arXiv:2304.03849, 2023

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Control barrier functions: Theory and applications

    Aaron D Ames, Samuel Coogan, Magnus Egerstedt, Gennaro Notomista, Koushil Sreenath, and Paulo Tabuada. Control barrier functions: Theory and applications. In IEEE 18th European control conference (ECC) , pages 3420–3431, 2019

    work page 2019

  3. [3]

    Spatiotemporal tubes for temporal reach-avoid-stay tasks in unknown systems

    Ratnangshu Das, Ahan Basu, and Pushpak Jagtap. Spatiotemporal tubes for temporal reach-avoid-stay tasks in unknown systems. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 71(1):512–519, 2026

    work page 2026

  4. [4]

    Approximation-free control for signal temporal logic specifications using spatiotemporal tubes

    Ratnangshu Das, Subhodeep Choudhury, and Pushpak Jagtap. Approximation-free control for signal temporal logic specifications using spatiotemporal tubes. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 9:1562–1567, 2025. 15 A PREPRINT - J ULY 9, 2026

    work page 2025

  5. [5]

    Control barrier functions for the full class of signal temporal logic tasks using spatiotemporal tubes

    Ratnangshu Das, Subhodeep Choudhury, and Pushpak Jagtap. Control barrier functions for the full class of signal temporal logic tasks using spatiotemporal tubes. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.19595, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Prescribed performance control of unknown Euler-Lagrange systems under input constraints

    Ratnangshu Das and Pushpak Jagtap. Prescribed performance control of unknown Euler-Lagrange systems under input constraints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.01426, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals

    Alexandre Donzé and Oded Maler. Robust satisfaction of temporal logic over real-valued signals. InInternational conference on formal modeling and analysis of timed systems , pages 92–106. Springer, 2010

    work page 2010

  8. [8]

    Signal temporal logic compliant co-design of planning and control

    Manas Sashank Juvvi, Tushar Dilip Kurne, J V aishnavi, Shishir Kolathaya, and Pushpak Jagtap. Signal temporal logic compliant co-design of planning and control. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 19204–19209, 2025

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifica- tions: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods

    Karen Leung, Nikos Aréchiga, and Marco Pavone. Backpropagation through signal temporal logic specifica- tions: Infusing logical structure into gradient-based methods. The International Journal of Robotics Research , 42(6):356–370, 2023

    work page 2023

  10. [10]

    Real-time RRT* with signal temporal logic preferences

    Alexis Linard, Ilaria Torre, Ermanno Bartoli, Alex Sleat, Iolanda Leite, and Jana Tumova. Real-time RRT* with signal temporal logic preferences. In IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS), pages 8621–8627, 2023

    work page 2023

  11. [11]

    Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks

    Lars Lindemann and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Control barrier functions for signal temporal logic tasks. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 3(1):96–101, 2018

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Funnel control for fully actuated systems under a fragment of signal temporal logic specifications

    Lars Lindemann and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Funnel control for fully actuated systems under a fragment of signal temporal logic specifications. Nonlinear Analysis: Hybrid Systems , 39:100973, 2021

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Prescribed performance control for signal temporal logic specifications

    Lars Lindemann, Christos K V erginis, and Dimos V Dimarogonas. Prescribed performance control for signal temporal logic specifications. In IEEE 56th Annual Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 2997– 3002, 2017

    work page 2017

  14. [14]

    Compositional synthesis of signal temporal logic tasks via assume-guarantee contracts

    Siyuan Liu, Adnane Saoud, Pushpak Jagtap, Dimos V Dimarogonas, and Majid Zamani. Compositional synthesis of signal temporal logic tasks via assume-guarantee contracts. In IEEE 61st Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), pages 2184–2189, 2022

    work page 2022

  15. [15]

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

    Wenliang Liu, Noushin Mehdipour, and Calin Belta. Recurrent neural network controllers for signal temporal logic specifications subject to safety constraints. IEEE Control Systems Letters, 6:91–96, 2021

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    Safe model-based control from signal temporal logic specifica- tions using recurrent neural networks

    Wenliang Liu, Mirai Nishioka, and Calin Belta. Safe model-based control from signal temporal logic specifica- tions using recurrent neural networks. In IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) , pages 12416–12422, 2023

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Learning robust and correct controllers from signal temporal logic specifications using barriernet

    Wenliang Liu, Wei Xiao, and Calin Belta. Learning robust and correct controllers from signal temporal logic specifications using barriernet. In 62nd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC) , pages 7049–7054, 2023

    work page 2023

  18. [18]

    Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals

    Oded Maler and Dejan Nickovic. Monitoring temporal properties of continuous signals. In International sympo- sium on formal techniques in real-time and fault-tolerant systems , pages 152–166. Springer, 2004

    work page 2004

  19. [19]

    Robot control by using only joint position measurements

    S Nicosia and P Tomei. Robot control by using only joint position measurements. IEEE Transactions on Automatic control, 35(9):1058–1061, 1990

    work page 1990

  20. [20]

    Euler-Lagrange systems

    Romeo Ortega, Antonio Loria, Per Johan Nicklasson, Hebertt Sira-Ramirez, Romeo Ortega, Antonio Loría, Per Johan Nicklasson, and Hebertt Sira-Ramírez. Euler-Lagrange systems. Springer, 1998

    work page 1998

  21. [21]

    An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-UA V systems

    Zhenhua Pan, Chengxi Zhang, Y uanqing Xia, Hao Xiong, and Xiaodong Shao. An improved artificial potential field method for path planning and formation control of the multi-UA V systems. IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems II: Express Briefs , 69(3):1129–1133, 2022

    work page 2022

  22. [22]

    Learning from demonstrations using signal temporal logic

    Aniruddh Puranic, Jyotirmoy Deshmukh, and Stefanos Nikolaidis. Learning from demonstrations using signal temporal logic. In Conference on Robot Learning , pages 2228–2242. PMLR, 2021

    work page 2021

  23. [23]

    Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations

    Maziar Raissi, Paris Perdikaris, and George E Karniadakis. Physics-informed neural networks: A deep learning framework for solving forward and inverse problems involving nonlinear partial differential equations. Journal of Computational physics, 378:686–707, 2019

    work page 2019

  24. [24]

    Model predictive control with signal temporal logic specifications

    V asumathi Raman, Alexandre Donzé, Mehdi Maasoumy, Richard M Murray, Alberto Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, and Sanjit A Seshia. Model predictive control with signal temporal logic specifications. In 53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control , pages 81–87, 2014

    work page 2014

  25. [25]

    Reactive synthesis from signal temporal logic specifications

    V asumathi Raman, Alexandre Donzé, Dorsa Sadigh, Richard M Murray, and Sanjit A Seshia. Reactive synthesis from signal temporal logic specifications. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on hybrid systems: Computation and control, pages 239–248, 2015. 16 A PREPRINT - J ULY 9, 2026

    work page 2015

  26. [26]

    An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms

    Sebastian Ruder. An overview of gradient descent optimization algorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.04747 , 2016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  27. [27]

    Funnel-based reward shaping for signal temporal logic tasks in reinforcement learning

    Naman Saxena, Sandeep Gorantla, and Pushpak Jagtap. Funnel-based reward shaping for signal temporal logic tasks in reinforcement learning. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 9(2):1373–1379, 2023

    work page 2023

  28. [28]

    Accelerated training of physics-informed neural networks (pinns) using meshless discretizations

    Ramansh Sharma and V arun Shankar. Accelerated training of physics-informed neural networks (pinns) using meshless discretizations. Advances in neural information processing systems , 35:1034–1046, 2022

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Robotics: Modelling, Planning and Control

    Bruno Siciliano, Lorenzo Sciavicco, Luigi Villani, and Giuseppe Oriolo. Robotics: Modelling, Planning and Control. Springer Publishing Company, Incorporated, 2010

    work page 2010

  30. [30]

    Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications

    Dawei Sun, Jingkai Chen, Sayan Mitra, and Chuchu Fan. Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications. IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters , 7(2):3451–3458, 2022

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    V erification and control of hybrid systems: a symbolic approach

    Paulo Tabuada. V erification and control of hybrid systems: a symbolic approach . Springer Science & Business Media, 2009. 17

    work page 2009