Synthesis with Mandatory Stop Actions

We study the impact of the need for the agent to obligatorily instruct the action stop in her strategies. More specifically we consider synthesis (i.e., planning) for LTLf goals under LTL environment specifications in the case the agent must mandatorily stop at a certain point. We show that this obligation makes it impossible to exploit the liveness part of the LTL environment specifications to achieve her goal, effectively reducing the environment specifications to their safety part only. This has a deep impact on the efficiency of solving the synthesis, which can sidestep handling Buchi determinization associated to LTL synthesis, in favor of finite-state automata manipulation as in LTLf synthesis. Next, we add to the agent goal, expressed in LTLf, a safety goal, expressed in LTL. Safety goals must hold forever, even when the agent stops, since the environment can still continue its evolution. Hence the agent, before stopping, must ensure that her safety goal will be maintained even after she stops. To do synthesis in this case, we devise an effective approach that mixes a synthesis technique based on finite-state automata (as in the case of LTLf goals) and model-checking of nondeterministic Buchi automata. In this way, again, we sidestep Buchi automata determinization, hence getting a synthesis technique that is intrinsically simpler than standard LTL synthesis.

Synthesizing Best-effort Strategies under Multiple Environment Specifications

We formally introduce and solve the synthesis problem for LTL goals in the case of multiple, even contradicting, assumptions about the environment. Our solution concept is based on ``best-effort strategies'' which are agent plans that, for each of the environment specifications individually, achieve the agent goal against a maximal set of environments satisfying that specification. By means of a novel automata theoretic characterization we demonstrate that this best-effort synthesis for multiple environments is 2ExpTime-complete, i.e., no harder than plain LTL synthesis. We study an important case in which the environment specifications are increasingly indeterminate, and show that as in the case of a single environment, best-effort strategies always exist for this setting. Moreover, we show that in this setting the set of solutions are exactly the strategies formed as follows: amongst the best-effort agent strategies for ɸ under the environment specification E1, find those that do a best-effort for ɸ under (the more indeterminate) environment specification E2, and amongst those find those that do a best-effort for ɸ under the environment specification E3, etc.

Finite-Trace and Generalized-Reactivity Specifications in Temporal Synthesis

Linear Temporal Logic (LTL) synthesis aims at automatically synthesizing a program that complies with desired properties expressed in LTL. Unfortunately it has been proved to be too difficult computationally to perform full LTL synthesis. There have been two success stories with LTL synthesis, both having to do with the form of the specification. The first is the GR(1) approach: use safety conditions to determine the possible transitions in a game between the environment and the agent, plus one powerful notion of fairness, Generalized Reactivity(1), or GR(1). The second, inspired by AI planning, is focusing on finite-trace temporal synthesis, with LTLf (LTL on finite traces) as the specification language. In this paper we take these two lines of work and bring them together. We first study the case in which we have an LTLf agent goal and a GR(1) assumption. We then add to the framework safety conditions for both the environment and the agent, obtaining a highly expressive yet still scalable form of LTL synthesis.

Best-Effort Synthesis: Doing Your Best Is Not Harder Than Giving Up

We study best-effort synthesis under environment assumptions specified in LTL, and show that this problem has exactly the same computational complexity of standard LTL synthesis: 2EXPTIME-complete. We provide optimal algorithms for computing best-effort strategies, both in the case of LTL over infinite traces and LTL over finite traces (i.e., LTLf). The latter are particularly well suited for implementation.

Assume-Guarantee Synthesis for Prompt Linear Temporal Logic

Prompt-LTL extends Linear Temporal Logic with a bounded version of the ``eventually'' operator to express temporal requirements such as bounding waiting times. We study assume-guarantee synthesis for prompt-LTL: the goal is to construct a system such that for all environments satisfying a first prompt-LTL formula (the assumption) the system composed with this environment satisfies a second prompt-LTL formula (the guarantee). This problem has been open for a decade. We construct an algorithm for solving it and show that, like classical LTL synthesis, it is 2-EXPTIME-complete.

Two-Stage Technique for LTLf Synthesis Under LTL Assumptions

In synthesis, assumption are constraints on the environments that rule out certain environment behaviors. A key observation is that even if we consider system with LTLf goals on finite traces, assumptions need to be expressed considering infinite traces, using LTL on infinite traces, since the decision to stop the trace is controlled by the agent. To solve synthesis of LTLf goals under LTL assumptions, we could reduce the problem to LTL synthesis. Unfortunately, while synthesis in LTLf and in LTL have the same worst-case complexity (both are 2EXPTIME-complete), the algorithms available for LTL synthesis are much harder in practice than those for LTLf synthesis. Recently, it has been shown that in basic forms of fairness and stability assumptions we can avoid such a detour to LTL and keep the simplicity of LTLf synthesis. In this paper, we generalize these results and show how to effectively handle any kind of LTL assumptions. Specifically, we devise a two-stage technique for solving LTLf under general LTL assumptions and show empirically that this technique performs much better than standard LTL synthesis.

High-level Programming via Generalized Planning and LTL Synthesis

We look at program synthesis where the aim is to automatically synthesize a controller that operates on data structures and from which a concrete program can be easily derived. We do not aim at a fully-automatic process or tool that produces a program meeting a given specification of the program’s behaviour. Rather, we aim at the design of a clear and well-founded approach for supporting programmers at the design and implementation phases. Concretely, we first show that a program synthesis task can be modeled as a generalized planning problem. This is done at an abstraction level where the involved data structures are seen as black-boxes that can be interfaced with actions and observations, the first corresponding to the operations and the second to the queries provided by the data structure. The abstraction level is high enough to capture intuitive and common assumptions as well as general and simple strategies used by programmers, and yet it contains sufficient structure to support the automated generation of concrete solutions (in the form of controllers). From such controllers and the use of standard data structures, an actual program in a general language like C++ or Python can be easily obtained. Then, we discuss how the resulting generalized planning problem can be reduced to an LTL synthesis problem, thus making available any LTL synthesis engine for obtaining the controllers. We illustrate the effectiveness of the approach on a series of examples.

LTLƒ Synthesis with Fairness and Stability Assumptions

In synthesis, assumptions are constraints on the environment that rule out certain environment behaviors. A key observation here is that even if we consider systems with LTLƒ goals on finite traces, environment assumptions need to be expressed over infinite traces, since accomplishing the agent goals may require an unbounded number of environment action. To solve synthesis with respect to finite-trace LTLƒ goals under infinite-trace assumptions, we could reduce the problem to LTL synthesis. Unfortunately, while synthesis in LTLƒ and in LTL have the same worst-case complexity (both 2EXPTIME-complete), the algorithms available for LTL synthesis are much more difficult in practice than those for LTLƒ synthesis. In this work we show that in interesting cases we can avoid such a detour to LTL synthesis and keep the simplicity of LTLƒ synthesis. Specifically, we develop a BDD-based fixpoint-based technique for handling basic forms of fairness and of stability assumptions. We show, empirically, that this technique performs much better than standard LTL synthesis.