Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 24 references

Learning Linear Temporal Specifications from Demonstrations with Uncertainty

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read When traces are noisy, force the learner to trust at least one Hamming-neighbor per observation and it recovers LTL formulas closer to ground truth.

desk verdict Clean encoding of Hamming-ball uncertainty into LTL learning; the technical step is real, the evaluation is still thin, and the whole claim rests on a known radius k. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10918 v1 pith:S74SRTML submitted 2026-07-12 cs.AI cs.SYeess.SY

Parastou Fahim , Constantino Lagoa , Rômulo Meira-Góes This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.SYeess.SY
keywords LTLlearningtraceuncertaintyHammingdistancePseudo-BooleanoptimizationspecificationminingMaxSATfinitetraces
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Real system logs are rarely clean: sensors drop bits, labels flip, packets go missing. Existing LTL learners treat every recorded trace as exact truth (or at most as mislabeled) and therefore invent spurious temporal rules when the data are corrupted. This paper shows that if you treat each observation as the center of a small Hamming ball and require only that at least one trace inside that ball be consistent with the learned formula, a Pseudo-Boolean optimizer recovers formulas that stay closer to the true specification. The method is demonstrated on an HVAC controller and on common finite-trace LTL patterns; under controlled noise it outperforms both the original MaxSAT learner and a user-constraint-augmented variant.

What carries the argument

Uncertainty groups C_k(tr) together with the soft group-selection constraint that at least one estimate inside each group is chosen (and must then satisfy the formula), reduced to a weighted Pseudo-Boolean objective.

What would settle it

Generate traces from a known LTL formula, corrupt them with bit-flips whose Hamming distance systematically exceeds the radius k supplied to the learner, and check whether the recovered formula still matches the ground truth better than an ordinary MaxSAT baseline; if not, the claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under a known Hamming-radius bound, the robust LTL learning problem—find a minimal formula such that every uncertainty group contributes at least one consistent trace—can be encoded as a Pseudo-Boolean optimization whose solutions recover formulas that more closely match the ground-truth specification than standard MaxSAT learners that treat traces as exact.

Load-bearing premise

The true underlying trace always lies inside a known, fixed Hamming ball of radius k around the observed trace; if the real corruption is larger or structured differently, the groups become incorrect.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for learning minimal LTL formulas from finite traces that may be corrupted by bounded uncertainty (sensor faults, measurement error, data loss). Uncertainty is modeled by Hamming balls of a known radius k around each observed trace; these form estimate groups. The learning problem requires that at least one estimate per group be consistent with the formula (while still allowing a group-level misclassification budget κ). The problem is encoded as a Pseudo-Boolean Optimization whose hard constraints capture LTL syntax/semantics, trace selection, and optional user constraints, while the soft objective minimizes the fraction of groups that contribute no consistent estimate. The method is compared with the MaxSAT learner Flie (and a user-constraint variant) on an HVAC example and six synthetic LTLf patterns; the authors report that the recovered formulas more often preserve temporal structure present in the ground-truth specifications.

Significance. If the modeling assumptions hold, the work fills a genuine gap: prior SAT/MaxSAT LTL learners handle only label noise or exact traces, whereas real sensor streams are frequently bit-flipped or incomplete. The reduction to Pseudo-Boolean Optimization is clean and re-uses standard syntax-tree encodings, so the technique is immediately usable by the existing community. The explicit group-selection variables and the soft group-loss objective are a natural, reusable extension. Even the modest empirical gains already shown would be practically useful for verification and controller synthesis in safety-critical domains once the evaluation is strengthened.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III-A, Def. 1; §V Tables I–II] §III-A (Definition 1) and the construction of Pest/Nest: soundness of Φ_sel + Φ_grp (Eqs. 7–10) and therefore of the central claim that recovered formulas align better with ground truth rests on the guarantee that the unknown true trace always lies inside every Hamming ball of the a-priori radius k. Tables I–II only ever inject noise of radius ≤ k; they never probe misspecified k, bursty/structured corruption, or continuous sensor noise. Without such experiments the empirical claim remains conditional on an untested modeling assumption.
  2. [§V, Tables I–II; §VI] §V and Tables I–II: the evaluation comprises a single HVAC system and six synthetic formulas. Formula quality is assessed only by informal visual inspection; no quantitative distance (syntactic, semantic, or language-based) to the ground-truth formula is reported, even though the authors themselves list this as future work in §VI. With so few instances and no metric it is difficult to judge how often, and by how much, the method truly improves over the baselines.
  3. [§IV-D, Eqs. (12)–(13)] §IV-D, Eqs. (12)–(13): the Pseudo-Boolean objective correctly encodes group misclassification under the ball assumption, yet the paper never discusses the failure mode when the assumption is violated (true corruption >k). A short sensitivity study or negative experiment would make the contribution far more robust and would clarify the practical scope of the method.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 1] Fig. 1 caption and surrounding text: the soft/hard distinction is stated clearly, but the figure itself does not visually mark which conjunct is soft; a simple dashed box or color legend would help.
  2. [§III-A] Notation for the extended sample Test = (Pest, Nest) is introduced with an abuse-of-notation remark; a short explicit definition of the union would remove any ambiguity for readers implementing the encoding.
  3. [Table I] Table I, last row: the formula returned by the robust method is syntactically complex and still far from the ground truth; a brief remark on why the solver preferred that particular local minimum would aid interpretation.
  4. [throughout] Several typos appear (“Flie” vs. “FLIE”, “efficient”, “suffix”). A careful proof-reading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: constructive MaxSMT/PBO encoding of a newly defined group-robust LTL problem; ground-truth formulas appear only in post-hoc tables, never as fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper defines a robust learning problem (Problem 2) whose loss ℓ_g requires that at least one Hamming-ball estimate per observed trace is consistent with the candidate formula, then reduces that problem to an equivalent Pseudo-Boolean Optimization whose hard constraints (Φ_syn, Φ_sem, Φ_sel, Φ_usr) and soft group objective (eqs. 12–13) are written directly from the problem statement. The reduction is self-contained: no parameter is fitted to any ground-truth formula, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors’ prior work, and the only self-citation ([22]) supplies an optional user-constraint template that is not load-bearing for the main claim. Ground-truth LTL formulas are used solely to generate synthetic traces and to score the learned formulas after optimization (Tables I–II); they never enter the encoding or the objective. Consequently no equation reduces by construction to a quantity that was already supplied as input, and the empirical claim that the recovered formulas are closer to ground truth is an independent experimental observation under the stated noise model, not a tautology.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard LTL finite-trace semantics, the classical Hamming metric, and the modeling decision that uncertainty is exactly a known-radius ball. No new physical constants or free continuous parameters are fitted; the only free knobs are the discrete radius k, the misclassification budget κ, and the formula-size bound n, all treated as user inputs.

free parameters (3)
  • uncertainty radius k
    User-chosen integer bound on Hamming distance; the entire group construction and the soundness of the “at-least-one” constraint depend on it being large enough to contain the true trace.
  • misclassification threshold κ
    User-chosen fraction in [0,1] that appears in the soft objective; different values change which formulas are accepted.
  • maximum formula size n
    Hard bound on the syntax-tree depth/nodes; the minimality claim is relative to this bound.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Finite-trace LTL semantics of De Giacomo & Vardi (2013) correctly capture the intended system properties.
    All semantic constraints Φsem are built from these rules (§II-D).
  • ad hoc to paper Trace uncertainty is adequately modeled by the Hamming ball of a known radius k around the observed sequence.
    Definition 1 and the construction of Pest/Nest; no empirical validation that real sensor faults are pure bit-flips of bounded weight.
  • ad hoc to paper At least one estimate inside each ball is a “correct” demonstration that should be consistent with the target formula.
    Stated in §III-B; if every estimate is corrupted the group constraint becomes vacuous or wrong.
  • standard math Standard Boolean and Pseudo-Boolean optimization solvers correctly decide the encoded constraints.
    Relies on Z3’s MaxSMT/PBO engine (§IV-D).
invented entities (2)
  • trace estimate group C^k_tr
    purpose: Collects all sequences within Hamming distance k of an observed trace so that a single soft constraint can be written over the whole set.
    Definition 1; the groups are the novel modeling device that turns ordinary MaxSAT into the robust problem.
  • group misclassification loss ℓ_g
    purpose: Extends ordinary 0-1 misclassification to the setting where only one member of each uncertainty group needs to be correctly classified.
    Equations (3)–(4); the loss is defined solely for this paper’s optimization objective.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Learning Linear Temporal Specifications from Demonstrations with Uncertainty." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S74SRTML

@misc{pith2026260710918,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Learning Linear Temporal Specifications from Demonstrations with Uncertainty},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S74SRTML}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10918}
}
read the original abstract

Learning temporal logic specifications from system demonstrations is essential for tasks such as formal verification and controller synthesis, especially in safety-critical domains. Existing approaches typically assume demonstrations are correct or only affected by misclassification errors. In practice, however, system traces are often uncertain or incomplete due to sensor faults, measurement errors, or data loss. We present a framework for learning minimal Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) formulas from demonstrations with uncertainty. Our approach models uncertainty via Hamming distance to generate possible estimates around each observed trace, which are grouped with constraints requiring that at least one trace per group is consistent with the learned formula. Our problem is then reduced to an equivalent Pseudo-Boolean Optimization. We evaluate our method against state-of-the-art LTL learning approaches and show that it recovers specifications that more closely align with ground-truth formulas under uncertainty.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10918 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Propositional Formula Φ overview construction. The formula Φgrp highlighted in blue is the only soft constraint in MaxSMT [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. HVAC System Operation with and without Occupancy Table I also summarizes the comparison among the three algorithms. It provides the learned formula based on the uncertain traces, as well as the time to learn the formula. We observe that Flie learned simple formulas without finding the temporal relationship among atomic propositions, e.g., ¬hot U Xhot. This result is expected since Flie is not designed to handle trac… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Learning from demonstrations using signal temporal logic,

    A. Puranic, J. Deshmukh, and S. Nikolaidis, “Learning from demonstrations using signal temporal logic,” in Conference on Robot Learning. PMLR, 2021, pp. 2228–2242

    2021

  2. [2]

    Survey on mining signal temporal logic specifications,

    E. Bartocci, C. Mateis, E. Nesterini, and D. Nickovic, “Survey on mining signal temporal logic specifications,” Information and Computation, vol. 289, p. 104957, 2022

    2022

  3. [3]

    The complexity of learning temporal properties,

    B. Bordais, D. Neider, and R. Roy, “The complexity of learning temporal properties,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04486, 2024

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Formal methods for controlling dynamical systems,

    C. Belta, “Formal methods for controlling dynamical systems,” in Encyclopedia of Systems and Control. Springer, 2021, pp. 834–841

    2021

  5. [5]

    E. M. Wolff, Control of dynamical systems with temporal logic specifications. California Institute of Technology, 2014

    2014

  6. [6]

    Learning linear temporal properties,

    D. Neider and I. Gavran, “Learning linear temporal properties,” in 2018 Formal Methods in Computer Aided Design (FMCAD). IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–10

    2018

  7. [7]

    Learning temporal properties is np-hard,

    B. Bordais, D. Neider, and R. Roy, “Learning temporal properties is np-hard,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11403, 2023

    arXiv 2023

  8. [8]

    Maxsat-based temporal logic inference from noisy data,

    J.-R. Gaglione, D. Neider, R. Roy, U. Topcu, and Z. Xu, “Maxsat-based temporal logic inference from noisy data,” Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 427–442, 2022

    2022

Show all 24 references
  1. [9]

    Learning linear temporal properties for autonomous robotic systems,

    E. Ghiorzi, M. Colledanchise, G. Piquet, S. Bernagozzi, A. Tacchella, and L. Natale, “Learning linear temporal properties for autonomous robotic systems,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 2930–2937, 2023

    2023

  2. [10]

    Sampling- based motion planning with temporal goals,

    A. Bhatia, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y. Vardi, “Sampling- based motion planning with temporal goals,” in 2010 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation. IEEE, 2010, pp. 2689–2696

    2010

  3. [11]

    From linear temporal logics to büchi automata: the early and simple principle,

    Y.-K. Tsay and M. Y. Vardi, “From linear temporal logics to büchi automata: the early and simple principle,” in Model checking, synthesis, and learning: Essays dedicated to bengt jonsson on the occasion of his 60th birthday. Springer, 2022, pp. 8–40

    2022

  4. [12]

    A direct translation from ltl with past to deterministic rabin automata,

    S. Azzopardi, D. Lidell, and N. Piterman, “A direct translation from ltl with past to deterministic rabin automata,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.01178, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Transformer-based machine learning for fast sat solvers and logic synthesis,

    F. Shi, C. Lee, M. K. Bashar, N. Shukla, S.-C. Zhu, and V. Narayanan, “Transformer-based machine learning for fast sat solvers and logic synthesis,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.07116, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Learning interpretable models expressed in linear temporal logic,

    A. Camacho and S. A. McIlraith, “Learning interpretable models expressed in linear temporal logic,” in Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling, vol. 29, 2019, pp. 621–630

    2019

  7. [15]

    Learning temporal logic formulas from suboptimal demonstrations: theory and experi- ments,

    G. Chou, N. Ozay, and D. Berenson, “Learning temporal logic formulas from suboptimal demonstrations: theory and experi- ments,” Autonomous Robots, vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 149–174, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Learning an explainable trajectory generator using the automaton generative network (agn),

    X. Li, G. Rosman, I. Gilitschenski, B. Araki, C.-I. Vasile, S. Kara- man, and D. Rus, “Learning an explainable trajectory generator using the automaton generative network (agn),” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 984–991, 2021

    2021

  9. [17]

    Learning reward machines for partially observable reinforcement learning,

    R. Toro Icarte, E. Waldie, T. Klassen, R. Valenzano, M. Castro, and S. McIlraith, “Learning reward machines for partially observable reinforcement learning,” Advances in neural information processing systems, vol. 32, 2019

    2019

  10. [18]

    Baier and J.-P

    C. Baier and J.-P. Katoen, Principles of Model Checking. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008

    2008

  11. [19]

    Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces,

    G. De Giacomo and M. Y. Vardi, “Linear temporal logic and linear dynamic logic on finite traces,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-Third International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, ser. IJCAI ’13. AAAI Press, 2013, p. 854–860

    2013

  12. [20]

    Learning temporal logic properties: an overview of two recent methods,

    J.-R. Gaglione, R. Roy, N. Baharisangari, D. Neider, Z. Xu, and U. Topcu, “Learning temporal logic properties: an overview of two recent methods,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2212.00916, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Error detecting and error correcting codes,

    R. W. Hamming, “Error detecting and error correcting codes,” The Bell System Technical Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 147–160, 1950

    1950

  14. [22]

    Constrained ltl specification learning from examples,

    C. Zhang, P. Kapoor, I. Dardik, L. Cui, R. Meira-Góes, D. Gar- lan, and E. Kang, “Constrained ltl specification learning from examples,” in 2025 IEEE/ACM 47th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE). IEEE, 2025, pp. 629–641

    2025

  15. [23]

    Optimization modulo theories with linear rational costs,

    R. Sebastiani and S. Tomasi, “Optimization modulo theories with linear rational costs,” ACM Transactions on Computational Logic (TOCL), vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 1–43, 2015

    2015

  16. [24]

    Z3: An efficient SMT solver,

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner, “Z3: An efficient SMT solver,” in International conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Con- struction and Analysis of Systems. Springer, 2008, pp. 337–340

    2008

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.