Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 33 references

Multi-Agent Planning with Spatio-Temporal and Topological Constraints using STL-GO

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two solver encodings turn STL-GO specs into guaranteed plans

desk verdict First sound MIP/SMT encodings for STL-GO planning with real graph-operator content; the MIP incompleteness at separation margins is a presentation-level gap, not a soundness flaw, and should be fixed before acceptance. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.28679 v1 pith:FUE4CIS3 submitted 2026-07-29 cs.AI cs.MA

Sheryl Paul , Vidisha Kudalkar , Anand Balakrishnan , Lars Lindemann , Alberto Speranzon , Jyotirmoy V. Deshmukh This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.AIcs.MA
keywords STL-GOmulti-agentplanningsignaltemporallogicgraphoperatorsmixed-integerprogrammingsatisfiabilitymodulotheorytime-varyinginteractiongraphsformalsynthesis
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

This paper tackles the open problem of automatically planning multi-agent trajectories that satisfy STL-GO, a logic that combines spatio-temporal requirements with constraints over time-varying interaction graphs such as sensing, communication, and task topologies. Prior work used STL-GO only for runtime monitoring, given trajectories produced by some other planner. The authors show that when agent dynamics are affine and graph-constructor functions are piecewise affine with exact Boolean encodings, a bounded-horizon STL-GO planning problem can be compiled into either a mixed-integer program or an SMT instance. Their soundness theorems state that any feasible MIP solution or satisfiable SMT assignment yields a trajectory that genuinely satisfies the specification. Experiments on a search-and-rescue benchmark with multiple dynamic graphs demonstrate both encodings, and a comparison with HyperLTL shows STL-GO's graph operators avoid the quadratic constraint blow-up of reified agent quantifiers.

What carries the argument

The graph-operator encodings: for each graph type, per-agent eligibility variables mark which neighbors have an edge with weight in the specified interval and satisfy the inner subformula; a count variable tallies them; cardinality constraints enforce the required range; and a final disjunction or conjunction implements existential or universal quantification over graph types. In the MIP encoding this is done with binary Big-M constraints; in the SMT encoding with LRA biconditionals and ite-counting. This machinery converts the logic's neighborhood-cardinality semantics into solver-level arithmetic, which is what makes multi-graph, time-varying topology planning tractable.

What would settle it

Take a two-agent instance where the only feasible trajectory has one agent exactly at the communication-range boundary (edge weight exactly equal to w_min). Run the MIP encoding from the paper; if it returns infeasible while a feasible trajectory exists, the soundness theorem's implicit separation-margin assumption is violated. Alternatively, brute-force enumerate all trajectories for a small grid instance and compare each MIP/SMT solution against direct evaluation of the STL-GO semantics.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that planning under STL-GO reduces to finite constraint solving: each agent-local subformula's truth at each time step becomes a Boolean or binary variable, and the In/Out graph operators—which count neighbors satisfying a subformula with edge weights in an interval, over existential or universal quantification of graph types—are encoded exactly. The MIP encoding uses Big-M constraints with separation margins for edge-weight and predicate thresholds; the SMT encoding uses exact LRA+LIA biconditionals and integer ite-counting, avoiding those margins. Structural induction proves that the encoding variables mirror the STL-GO semantics exactly, so feasibility or satisfia

Load-bearing premise

The MIP soundness proof assumes that no feasible trajectory places an edge weight or atomic-predicate value exactly on the thresholds used by the Big-M encoding, so a valid plan requiring an agent to sit precisely at a communication-range boundary could make the MIP infeasible.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • STL-GO specifications become usable for synthesis, not just monitoring, so mission requirements over dynamic communication and task topologies can be guaranteed at plan time.
  • MIP encodings support objective functions, enabling optimal trajectory synthesis under STL-GO constraints, not merely feasible ones.
  • The SMT encoding is empirically more compact and faster, suggesting it scales to larger teams and more interaction graphs, while MIP remains the choice for cost-optimized plans.
  • Because the encoding is modular in graph constructors, any new interaction modality expressible as a piecewise-affine, Boolean-comparable function can be added without changing the core machinery.
  • The scenario-tree contingency planning construction yields plans that react to which emergencies activate, with branching only at observable distinctions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The separation-margin assumption in the MIP encoding is a practical robustness gap: missions that legitimately require an agent to sit exactly at a communication or sensing boundary could be wrongly declared infeasible; the SMT encoding does not have this weakness and could serve as an exact fallback or validator.
  • The same graph-operator machinery could be applied to other relational planning constraints—collision avoidance, formation maintenance, or bandwidth limits—by expressing them as interaction graphs, giving a uniform way to compile them into solvers.
  • The pointwise evaluation of agent quantifiers suggests a natural decomposition path toward decentralized planning: local formulas compile locally, with only graph-cardinality terms coupling agents.
  • One could test robustness quantitatively by perturbing trajectories near graph boundaries and checking whether MIP feasibility flips while SMT satisfiability does not; this would quantify the practical cost of Big-M margins.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the problem of synthesizing bounded-horizon open-loop plans for a multi-agent system subject to STL-GO specifications, a logic that extends STL with graph operators over time-varying interaction graphs. The authors present two encodings: a mixed-integer program (MIP) and a quantifier-free SMT instance in LRA+LIA. They prove soundness theorems (Thm. 7 and Thm. 9) by structural induction, showing that any feasible MIP/SMT solution yields a trajectory satisfying the STL-GO formula at the initial state. They implement a unified interface, evaluate both encodings on a multi-UAV search-and-rescue benchmark with ablations over team size and graph complexity, and compare STL-GO with HyperLTL on a grid-world benchmark, demonstrating a significant constraint blow-up for HyperLTL. Appendices contain full proofs and encoding details.

Significance. If correct, this is the first sound planner for STL-GO, a formalism that can express spatio-temporal and topological constraints over dynamic interaction graphs. The SMT encoding is exact and provides a clean completeness guarantee; the MIP encoding enables objective-driven planning. The paper ships detailed structural-induction proofs and a concrete HyperLTL comparison, both of which are valuable. The main caveat is that the MIP encoding is sound but not complete with respect to the stated planning problem unless a separation-margin condition is imposed; this does not invalidate the soundness direction but must be made explicit. Overall, this is a substantial contribution to formal multi-agent synthesis.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 7 / Appendix A] Theorem 7 states feasibility of the MIP implies satisfaction. The proof in Appendix A, however, relies on separation hypotheses absent from the theorem and from Section III: feasible atomic-predicate values avoid (−ε,0), and feasible edge weights avoid (w_min−δ_w,w_min)∪(w_max,w_max+δ_w). These hypotheses are needed for the Big-M constraints of Eq. (5)/Appendix C to admit a binary assignment. Without them, a satisfying trajectory may place a predicate value or edge weight in a dead zone, making the MIP infeasible (e.g., a communication-range constraint at the boundary). The SMT encoding of Section V handles these cases exactly. The MIP encoding is therefore sound but incomplete. Please add the separation condition as an explicit assumption in Section III and Theorem 7, or state in the Limitations that the MIP planner is sound but not complete and that SMT is the exact method. As written,
  2. [Section IV-A] The definition of MIP-encodable graph constructors states that edge-existence predicates admit 'an exact mixed-integer representation.' This is only achievable if the affine comparisons involved are separated from the boundary by the margins ε and δ_w. Since these margins are not part of the definition, the term 'exact' overstates the situation. Please make the separation condition explicit in the definition, or rephrase as 'exact under a δ/ε-separation condition.' This clarifies that the completeness of the MIP encoding is conditional.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VI] The experimental setup introduces contingency planning with scenario-indexed sequences and non-anticipation constraints, but the formal problem in Section III is open-loop. Please clarify that the soundness theorems apply to each open-loop branch of the contingency tree, and that the scenario-based construction is an additional step not covered by the formal statements.
  2. [Limitations] The Limitations section does not mention that the MIP encoding may be infeasible for valid instances due to the Big-M separation margins. A short remark would prevent users from misinterpreting an infeasible MIP as a proof of non-existence of a plan.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'with soundness guarantees' is technically accurate but could be clarified to say 'soundness guarantees for both encodings, with the MIP encoding's completeness conditioned on separation margins.'
  4. [Example 1 (continued)] The definitions of φ_LL^ℓ and φ_LR^ℓ are identical and the role-partitioned restrictions are suppressed; a reader cannot tell how the locator/rescuer distinction enters. Please state the restricted target sets.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the MIP/SMT encodings are compositional translations of STL-GO semantics, and the only self-citation supplies the external logic definition rather than evidence for the encodings.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are Theorems 7 and 9, which assert that feasible MIP / satisfiable SMT encodings yield trajectories satisfying the STL-GO specification. Both proofs proceed by structural induction (Appendices A and B), matching each encoding constraint to the corresponding semantic clause: for example, constraint (5) is shown to enforce gamma = 1 iff the graph-constructor edge exists and its piecewise-affine weight lies in W, and constraints (18)-(21) do the same via exact LRA biconditionals. This is a direct compositional translation, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction, and no result is obtained by defining a variable to be the truth value it is meant to certify. The only self-citation is [8], used in Section II-B to supply STL-GO's syntax and semantics; it is not cited as evidence that the MIP/SMT encodings are sound, so the load-bearing argument does not reduce to a self-citation. The Appendix A conditions that feasible predicate values avoid (-epsilon, 0) and edge weights avoid the delta_w margins are explicit assumptions that make the MIP encoding incomplete at boundaries, but they are caveats to the soundness theorem rather than circular reductions. The HyperLTL comparison uses an external benchmark (HypRL [9]) and reports encoding sizes and solve times, so it is not a renaming of a known result under new terminology. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical or mathematical entities are postulated. The only 'new' objects are solver encodings of STL-GO's existing graph operators. The ledger's free parameters are numerical safety margins for the Big-M encoding, not fitted data.

free parameters (3)
  • M (Big-M constant) = not specified
    Hand-chosen sufficiently large constant used in MIP encodings of atoms and graph weight bounds; soundness requires M to exceed all relevant state/weight magnitudes (Appendix C).
  • ε (atomic predicate separation margin) = not specified
    Small positive margin in Big-M encoding of atomic predicates; the proof assumes no feasible predicate value lies in (−ε,0).
  • δ_w (edge-weight separation margin) = not specified
    Fixed margin used in Eq. (5) for weight-interval membership; assumes edge weights avoid the regions immediately outside [w_min,w_max].
assumptions (5)
  • ad hoc to paper Feasible edge weights avoid the open regions (w_min−δ_w, w_min) and (w_max, w_max+δ_w), and feasible predicate values avoid (−ε,0).
    Required for exact Big-M representation; without it Theorem 7's forward direction can classify non-qualifying neighbors and the MIP may reject satisfying trajectories (Eq. (5), Appendix C).
  • domain assumption Agent dynamics are deterministic, homogeneous, discrete-time affine in state/input/world state; states and inputs lie in hyper-rectangles.
    Eq. (3)/(16) and Eq. (4)/(15); this is the problem class for which the encodings are defined.
  • domain assumption Interaction graphs are generated by graph constructor functions whose edge-existence predicates are exactly encodable and weights are piecewise affine (MIP) or LRA terms (SMT).
    Definition 4 and Sections IV-A/V-A restrict the class of state-dependent graphs; non-encodable graphs are out of scope.
  • domain assumption Environment evolution w_{t+1}=f(w_t) and initial world state w_0 are fixed and known.
    Section II-A; the experiments rely on known scenarios and deterministic world dynamics.
  • domain assumption Strong bounded-horizon semantics: until/eventually obligations that extend beyond horizon T are false; globally is true at the boundary.
    Footnote 4; the encodings implement this semantic convention rather than infinite-horizon semantics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multi-Agent Planning with Spatio-Temporal and Topological Constraints using STL-GO." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FUE4CIS3

@misc{pith2026260728679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multi-Agent Planning with Spatio-Temporal and Topological Constraints using STL-GO},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FUE4CIS3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.28679}
}
read the original abstract

Multi-agent planning problems arise in a variety of engineering applications, such as multi-robot wildfire fighting and unmanned aerial inspection in factories. A particular challenge is the existence of spatio-temporal (i.e., when and/or where an agent should do what) and topological constraints (i.e., how agents should interact), as typically formalized via the notion of graphs. Over the last years, various frameworks have been proposed that can capture such constraints via spatio-temporal logics. We focus here on spatio-temporal logic with graph operators (STL-GO), a recent formalism that supports reasoning about multiple agents and their topologies, such as sensing, communication, and task topologies. In this paper, we consider the problem of planning multi-agent paths that satisfy constraints written in STL-GO. This problem is particularly challenging due to the need of encoding multiple, potentially time-varying graphs via the graph operators inherent to STL-GO. We present two encodings of this problem, one based on mixed-integer programming (MIP) and another based on satisfiability modulo theory (SMT), with soundness guarantees. We provide a unified interface for specifying agent constraints, their graph topologies, and the STL-GO specification, enabling seamless use of both methods and facilitating direct comparison between them. We evaluate both encodings on a multi-UAV search-and-rescue benchmark, ablating over team size and graph complexity, highlighting the expressiveness of the proposed encodings under dynamic multi- graph interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.28679 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Motivation scenario: a heterogeneous multi-agent system coordinat￾ing wildfire response over a satellite terrain map. Yellow drones are locator agents that patrol the region to monitor fire spread and detect emergencies (marked by red circles). The purple drone is the rescuer agent tasked with reaching survivors and transporting them to the rescue center (white tent). Orange arrows indicate sensing: a locator drone … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of objective function on agent trajectories (5 locators, 2 rescuers). With no objective (a), the MIP returns an arbitrary feasible solution. A linear objective (b) and quadratic objective (c) progressively guide the rescuer toward more direct paths to the emergency sites. (a) 5 locators, 2 rescuers (b) 7 locators, 3 rescuers (c) 9 locators, 3 rescuers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Scalability across team sizes under a linear objective. Increasing the number of locators improves coverage of the monitored region, while the rescuers adapt their paths to the denser set of detected emergencies. sively increasing specification complexity while keeping the environment, dynamics, and objective fixed. Starting from a baseline of STL predicates (no graph operators), we add (i) sensing-neighborhood cons… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [8]

    STL-GO: Spatio-temporal logic with graph operators for dis- tributed systems with multiple network topologies,

    Y . Zhao, X. Yu, B. Hoxha, G. Fainekos, J. Deshmukh, and L. Linde- mann, “STL-GO: Spatio-temporal logic with graph operators for dis- tributed systems with multiple network topologies,”ACM Transactions on Embedded Computing Systems, vol. 24, no. 5s, pp. 1–23, 2025

    2025

  2. [1]

    Specifying and monitoring properties of stochastic spatio-temporal systems in signal temporal logic,

    L. Bortolussi and L. Nenzi, “Specifying and monitoring properties of stochastic spatio-temporal systems in signal temporal logic,” inProceed- ings of the 8th International Conference on Performance Evaluation Methodologies and Tools, 2014, pp. 66–73

    2014

  3. [2]

    Qualitative and quantitative monitoring of spatio-temporal properties,

    L. Nenzi, L. Bortolussi, V . Ciancia, M. Loreti, and M. Massink, “Qualitative and quantitative monitoring of spatio-temporal properties,” inRuntime Verification: 6th International Conference, RV 2015, Vienna, Austria, September 22-25, 2015. Proceedings. Springer, 2015, pp. 21– 37

    2015

  4. [3]

    SaSTL: Spatial aggregation signal temporal logic for runtime monitoring in smart cities,

    M. Ma, E. Bartocci, E. Lifland, J. Stankovic, and L. Feng, “SaSTL: Spatial aggregation signal temporal logic for runtime monitoring in smart cities,” in2020 ACM/IEEE 11th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS). IEEE, 2020, pp. 51–62

    2020

  5. [4]

    Spatel: a novel spatial-temporal logic and its applications to networked systems,

    I. Haghighi, A. Jones, Z. Kong, E. Bartocci, R. Gros, and C. Belta, “Spatel: a novel spatial-temporal logic and its applications to networked systems,” inProceedings of the 18th International Conference on Hybrid Systems: Computation and Control, 2015, pp. 189–198

    2015

  6. [5]

    Monitoring mobile and spatially distributed cyber-physical systems,

    E. Bartocci, L. Bortolussi, M. Loreti, and L. Nenzi, “Monitoring mobile and spatially distributed cyber-physical systems,” inProceedings of the 15th ACM-IEEE International Conference on Formal Methods and Models for System Design (MEMOCODE), 2017

    2017

  7. [6]

    A logic for monitoring dynamic networks of spatially-distributed cyber-physical systems,

    L. Nenzi, E. Bartocci, L. Bortolussi, and M. Loreti, “A logic for monitoring dynamic networks of spatially-distributed cyber-physical systems,”Logical Methods in Computer Science, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://lmcs.episciences.org/8936/pdf

    2022

  8. [7]

    Census signal temporal logic inference for multiagent group behavior analysis,

    Z. Xu and A. A. Julius, “Census signal temporal logic inference for multiagent group behavior analysis,”IEEE Transactions on Automation Science and Engineering, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 264–277, 2016

    2016

Show all 33 references
  1. [9]

    HypRL: Reinforcement Learning of Control Policies for Hyperproperties,

    T.-H. Hsu, A. Rafieioskouei, and B. Bonakdarpour, “HypRL: Reinforcement Learning of Control Policies for Hyperproperties,” in The Thirty-ninth Annual Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Oct. 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum? id=lJSAtyx9Uc

    2025

  2. [10]

    Hyperproperties for Robotics: Planning via HyperLTL,

    Y . Wang, S. Nalluri, and M. Pajic, “Hyperproperties for Robotics: Planning via HyperLTL,” in2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), May 2020, pp. 8462–8468. [Online]. Available: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/9196874

    2020

  3. [11]

    Logics and Algorithms for Hyperproperties,

    B. Finkbeiner, “Logics and Algorithms for Hyperproperties,”ACM SIGLOG News, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 4–23, Jul. 2023. [Online]. Available: https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3610392.3610394

    2023

  4. [12]

    An online planning framework for multi-robot systems with LTL specification,

    R. Singh and I. Saha, “An online planning framework for multi-robot systems with LTL specification,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS), 2024

    2024

  5. [13]

    Automated composition of motion primitives for multi-robot systems from safe LTL specifications,

    I. Saha, R. Ramaithitima, V . Kumar, G. J. Pappas, and S. A. Seshia, “Automated composition of motion primitives for multi-robot systems from safe LTL specifications,” inProceedings of the IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS). IEEE, 2014...

    2014

  6. [14]

    Lindemann and D

    L. Lindemann and D. V . Dimarogonas,Formal Methods for Multi-Agent Feedback Control Systems. The MIT Press, 2025

    2025

  7. [15]

    Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications,

    D. Sun, J. Chen, S. Mitra, and C. Fan, “Multi-agent motion planning from signal temporal logic specifications,”IEEE Robotics and Automa- tion Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 3451–3458, 2022

    2022

  8. [16]

    Alternating-time temporal logic,

    R. Alur, T. A. Henzinger, and O. Kupferman, “Alternating-time temporal logic,”Journal of the ACM, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    Robust multi-agent coordination from CaTL+ specifications,

    W. Liuet al., “Robust multi-agent coordination from CaTL+ specifications,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.01732, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2210.01732

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Scalable lazy SMT-based motion planning,

    Y . Shoukry, P. Nuzzo, I. Saha, A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. A. Seshia, G. J. Pappas, and P. Tabuada, “Scalable lazy SMT-based motion planning,” in2016 IEEE 55th Conference on Decision and Control (CDC). IEEE, 2016, pp. 6683–6688

    2016

  11. [19]

    Linear temporal logic motion planning for teams of underactuated robots using satisfiability modulo convex programming,

    Y . Shoukry, P. Nuzzo, A. Balkan, I. Saha, A. L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, S. A. Seshia, G. J. Pappas, and P. Tabuada, “Linear temporal logic motion planning for teams of underactuated robots using satisfiability modulo convex programming,” in2017 IEEE 56th annual conference on...

    2017

  12. [20]

    Neural network- based control for multi-agent systems from spatio-temporal specifica- tions,

    S. Alsalehi, N. Mehdipour, E. Bartocci, and C. Belta, “Neural network- based control for multi-agent systems from spatio-temporal specifica- tions,” inProceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2021

    2021

  13. [21]

    Multi-agent path finding for timed tasks using evolutionary games,

    S. Paul, A. Balakrishnan, X. Qin, and J. V . Deshmukh, “Multi-agent path finding for timed tasks using evolutionary games,” inQuantitative Evaluation of Systems and Formal Modeling and Analysis of Timed Systems, J. Hillston, S. Soudjani, and M. Waga, Eds. Cham: Springer Nature...

    2024

  14. [22]

    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

    2004

  15. [23]

    Model predictive control with signal temporal logic specifications,

    V . Raman, A. Donzé, M. Maasoumy, R. M. Murray, A. Sangiovanni- Vincentelli, and S. A. Seshia, “Model predictive control with signal temporal logic specifications,” in53rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control, 2014, pp. 81–87

    2014

  16. [24]

    Optimization-based trajec- tory generation with linear temporal logic specifications,

    E. M. Wolff, U. Topcu, and R. M. Murray, “Optimization-based trajec- tory generation with linear temporal logic specifications,” in2014 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA), 2014, pp. 5319–5325

    2014

  17. [25]

    Monitoring signal tem- poral logic in distributed cyber-physical systems,

    A. Momtaz, H. Abbas, and B. Bonakdarpour, “Monitoring signal tem- poral logic in distributed cyber-physical systems,” inProceedings of the ACM/IEEE 14th International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (with CPS-IoT Week 2023), 2023, pp. 154–165

    2023

  18. [26]

    Automatic trace generation for signal temporal logic,

    P. Prabhakar, R. Lal, and J. Kapinski, “Automatic trace generation for signal temporal logic,” in2018 IEEE Real-Time Systems Symposium (RTSS). IEEE, 2018, pp. 208–217

    2018

  19. [27]

    Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,

    Gurobi Optimization, LLC, “Gurobi Optimizer Reference Manual,”

  20. [28]

    Z3: an efficient SMT solver,

    L. De Moura and N. Bjørner, “Z3: an efficient SMT solver,” in Proceedings of the Theory and Practice of Software, 14th International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems, ser. TACAS’08/ETAPS’08. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer- Verlag, 2...

    2008

  21. [29]

    SwarmLab: a MATLAB drone swarm simulator,

    E. Soria, F. Schiano, and D. Floreano, “SwarmLab: a MATLAB drone swarm simulator,” 2020. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2005. 02769

    2020

  22. [30]

    Prescribed performance control for signal temporal logic specifications,

    L. Lindemann, C. K. Verginis, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Prescribed performance control for signal temporal logic specifications,” inPro- ceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC), 2017

    2017

  23. [31]

    Probabilistic coordination of heterogeneous teams from capability temporal logic specifications,

    M. Cai, K. Leahy, Z. Serlin, and C.-I. Vasile, “Probabilistic coordination of heterogeneous teams from capability temporal logic specifications,” IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 1190–1197, 2022

    2022

  24. [32]

    Planning for heterogeneous teams of robots with temporal logic capability and resource constraints,

    G. A. Cardonaet al., “Planning for heterogeneous teams of robots with temporal logic capability and resource constraints,”The International Journal of Robotics Research, 2024. APPENDIXA THEORETICALRESULTS FORMIP ENCODING A. Proof of Lemma 6 (MIP , Agent-Local) Proof.We prove t...

    2024

  25. [2024]

    Available: https://www.gurobi.com

    [Online]. Available: https://www.gurobi.com

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.