arxiv: 2605.05797 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-07 · 💻 cs.RO · cs.FL

Recognition: unknown

Resource-Constrained Robotic Planning in the face of Mixed Uncertainty

Yihao Yin , Pian Yu , Andrea Turrini , Zhiming Chi , Yong Li , Lijun Zhang

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 09:24 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.RO cs.FL

keywords resource constrained planningmixed uncertaintyCMDPSTLTLfstrategy synthesisrobotic systemsMarkov decision processrobust planning

0 comments

The pith

Modeling systems as Consumption Markov Decision Processes with Set-valued Transitions allows synthesis of strategies that maximize LTLf task satisfaction probability without resource exhaustion.

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

Robots must plan actions under mixed uncertainty including probabilistic noise and set-valued unknowns while respecting resource limits like battery life. The paper introduces the CMDPST as a model that captures nondeterminism, both types of uncertainty, and consumption in a single structure. It then integrates this with an LTLf formula describing the task and solves for the strategy that achieves the highest probability of task success without depleting resources. Two algorithms are presented: one based on unrolling the state space and an optimized version using pruning for efficiency, validated on warehouse examples.

Core claim

The paper claims that the resource constrained optimal robust strategy synthesis problem can be solved by modeling the system as a CMDPST that combines set-valued transitions for unquantifiable uncertainty with probabilistic transitions and resource consumption functions, then finding a strategy in the product with the LTLf automaton that maximizes the acceptance probability subject to no resource violation, with solutions via direct unrolling or state-space pruning.

What carries the argument

Consumption Markov Decision Process with Set-valued Transitions (CMDPST) that unifies nondeterministic, probabilistic, and set-valued behaviors with resource tracking to support robust strategy synthesis under constraints.

Load-bearing premise

That the CMDPST accurately models the robot's real-world uncertainties and resource consumption, and that the LTLf formula correctly represents the intended task.

What would settle it

A real-world trial in which the synthesized strategy causes resource exhaustion or fails the task more often than the calculated probability indicates.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.05797 by Andrea Turrini, Lijun Zhang, Pian Yu, Yihao Yin, Yong Li, Zhiming Chi.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: Warehouse network preventing resource exhaustion. ii) A na¨ıve approach is first proposed to solve the problem by converting the CMDPST into an unrolled MDPST and applying an existing algorithm. To improve efficiency, we then introduce an optimization that prunes the CMDPST prior to unrolling, significantly reducing the state space required for synthesis. Experimental results show that our pruning method c… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: Simplified Warehouse Planning warehouse scenario introduced in Section II with 16 distinct warehouses arranged in a 4 × 4 grid; each warehouse corresponds to a state s ∈ S = {1, 2, . . . , 16}, shown in view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Robots operate under significant uncertainty, from quantifiable noise to unquantifiable unknowns, and must account for strict operational constraints, such as limited resources. In this paper, we consider the problem of synthesizing robust strategies to guide a robot's actions in fulfilling a given task, while ensuring the system never exhausts its resources. To solve this problem, we first model the robotic system as a Consumption Markov Decision Process with Set-valued Transitions(CMDPST), a unified framework modelling nondeterministic actions, quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainty, and resource consumption. Then, we combine the CMDPST with the task specification, expressed as a Linear Temporal Logic over finite traces (LTLf ) formula. Lastly, we address the resource constrained optimal robust strategy synthesis problem, which aims to synthesize a strategy that maximizes the probability of satisfying the LTLf objective without resource exhaustion. Our solution involves two techniques: a direct unrolling-based method and a more efficient, optimized approach that leverages state-space pruning for better performance. Experiments on a warehouse transportation network show the effectiveness of the proposed solutions.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The CMDPST model unifies mixed uncertainty and resource tracking for LTLf synthesis, but the pruning step in the optimized algorithm has no demonstrated guarantee that it preserves maximal satisfaction probability.

read the letter

This paper introduces the CMDPST model to capture mixed uncertainty and resource constraints in robotic systems, then combines it with LTLf specifications to synthesize strategies that maximize the probability of task satisfaction without running out of resources. They offer a direct unrolling method and an optimized version using state-space pruning. The modeling step is done well. It unifies nondeterministic actions, quantifiable noise via probabilities, unquantifiable unknowns via sets, and consumption tracking in a single framework. That is a useful way to think about real robot planning problems. The warehouse example gives some evidence that the approach can be applied and that both algorithms produce outputs. The main weakness is in the optimized method. The claim is that pruning improves performance while still solving the optimal robust synthesis problem. However, there is no indication of a formal justification, such as an invariant or bisimulation argument, showing that pruned states cannot be part of a better strategy that respects the resource limits. Without that, it is hard to trust that the pruned version actually finds the maximum probability. The direct method is safer in this regard. The paper does not appear to have circular reasoning or invented entities, and the citations seem appropriate for the area. This is for people in formal verification and robotics who deal with planning under uncertainty and constraints. A reader in that group could pick up the model and try the ideas, though they would need to verify the pruning details themselves. I would send it for peer review. The core idea is relevant and the modeling is clear, so referees can address the soundness gap in the pruning technique and ask for more experimental data or complexity results.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces the Consumption Markov Decision Process with Set-valued Transitions (CMDPST) to model robotic systems under nondeterministic actions, mixed quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainty, and resource consumption. It combines the CMDPST with an LTLf task specification and addresses the resource-constrained optimal robust strategy synthesis problem of maximizing the probability of satisfying the LTLf objective without resource exhaustion. Two solution techniques are presented: a direct unrolling-based method and a more efficient optimized approach using state-space pruning. Effectiveness is shown via experiments on a warehouse transportation network.

Significance. If the state-space pruning is formally shown to be sound and the algorithms are proven correct, the work could advance practical synthesis of robust strategies for resource-limited robots operating under mixed uncertainty, with potential impact on applications such as autonomous logistics.

major comments (2)

[Optimized synthesis approach] The description of the optimized synthesis method claims that state-space pruning yields better performance while still solving the resource-constrained optimal robust strategy synthesis problem (maximizing P(satisfy LTLf) subject to no resource exhaustion). However, no formal argument is supplied showing that pruned states/transitions cannot contribute to admissible strategies with strictly higher satisfaction probability that still respect the consumption constraints (e.g., via bisimulation, monotonicity of the value function, or an explicit invariant). This is load-bearing for the central claim that the optimized method correctly computes the maximal probability.
[Abstract and solution description] The abstract states the modeling and synthesis approach but supplies neither proofs of correctness for either algorithm, complexity analysis, nor quantitative experimental results (e.g., success rates, runtime comparisons, or probability values) to confirm that the two algorithms correctly solve the stated optimization problem.

minor comments (1)

[Introduction / Modeling section] The weakest assumption—that the CMDPST faithfully captures the real-world mixture of noise, unknowns, and resource use, and that the LTLf formula correctly encodes the desired task—could be stated more explicitly when introducing the model.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their constructive and detailed comments on our manuscript. We address each major comment point by point below, indicating the changes we will make in the revised version.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Optimized synthesis approach] The description of the optimized synthesis method claims that state-space pruning yields better performance while still solving the resource-constrained optimal robust strategy synthesis problem (maximizing P(satisfy LTLf) subject to no resource exhaustion). However, no formal argument is supplied showing that pruned states/transitions cannot contribute to admissible strategies with strictly higher satisfaction probability that still respect the consumption constraints (e.g., via bisimulation, monotonicity of the value function, or an explicit invariant). This is load-bearing for the central claim that the optimized method correctly computes the maximal probability.

Authors: We agree that a formal argument for the soundness of the state-space pruning is essential to support the central claim that the optimized method correctly computes the maximal probability. The current manuscript does not provide such a proof. In the revised version, we will add a dedicated subsection with a rigorous proof of soundness. The proof will establish that the pruning rules preserve the set of admissible strategies by leveraging the monotonicity of the satisfaction probability value function (with respect to the LTLf objective) and an invariant showing that eliminated states and transitions cannot yield strictly higher probability while respecting resource bounds. This will demonstrate equivalence between the direct and optimized methods for the optimization problem. revision: yes
Referee: [Abstract and solution description] The abstract states the modeling and synthesis approach but supplies neither proofs of correctness for either algorithm, complexity analysis, nor quantitative experimental results (e.g., success rates, runtime comparisons, or probability values) to confirm that the two algorithms correctly solve the stated optimization problem.

Authors: We acknowledge that the abstract is a concise overview and does not include proofs or detailed quantitative data, as is conventional. However, the full paper should substantiate the claims with these elements. The manuscript presents the two algorithms and reports experimental effectiveness on the warehouse network but lacks explicit proofs of correctness, complexity analysis, and specific quantitative metrics. In the revision, we will add proofs of correctness for both the direct unrolling-based method and the optimized pruning approach (including the new soundness proof noted above), include a complexity analysis for each technique, and expand the experimental section with quantitative results such as runtime comparisons, task success rates, and achieved probability values. We will also update the abstract to reference the inclusion of these analyses and results. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained modeling and algorithmic contribution

full rationale

The paper defines a CMDPST model to unify nondeterministic actions, mixed uncertainty, and resource consumption, composes it with an LTLf formula, and presents two synthesis algorithms (direct unrolling and pruning-based optimization) to maximize satisfaction probability under resource bounds. No equations reduce a claimed result to its own inputs by construction, no parameters are fitted to data and then relabeled as predictions, and no load-bearing self-citations or uniqueness theorems imported from prior author work are invoked. The pruning step is described as an efficiency technique without any self-referential definition that would force the output to equal the input; the overall chain remains an independent modeling-plus-algorithm contribution.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Only the abstract is available; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The model itself introduces CMDPST as a new construct, but its internal assumptions cannot be audited from the given text.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5494 in / 1127 out tokens · 26978 ms · 2026-05-08T09:24:29.253105+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

[1]

Towards fully autonomous driving: Systems and algorithms,

J. Levinson, J. Askeland, J. Becker, J. Dolson, D. Held, S. Kammel, J. Z. Kolter, D. Langer, O. Pinket al., “Towards fully autonomous driving: Systems and algorithms,” inIV, 2011, pp. 163–168

2011
[2]

Motion planning under uncertainty for on-road autonomous driving,

W. Xu, J. Pan, J. Wei, and J. M. Dolan, “Motion planning under uncertainty for on-road autonomous driving,” inICRA, 2014, pp. 2507–2512

2014
[3]

Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,

P. Arm, G. Waibel, J. Preisig, T. Tuna, R. Zhou, V . Bickel, G. Ligeza, T. Miki, F. Kehl, H. Kolvenbachet al., “Scientific exploration of challenging planetary analog environments with a team of legged robots,”Sci. Robotics, vol. 8, no. 80, 2023

2023
[4]

Autonomous cooperative visual navigation for planetary exploration robots,

M. S. Bahraini, A. Zenati, and N. Aouf, “Autonomous cooperative visual navigation for planetary exploration robots,” inICRA, 2021, pp. 9653–9658

2021
[5]

A decade retrospective of medical robotics research from 2010 to 2020,

P. E. Dupont, B. J. Nelson, M. Goldfarb, B. Hannaford, A. Menciassi, M. K. O’Malley, N. Simaan, P. Valdastri, and G.-Z. Yang, “A decade retrospective of medical robotics research from 2010 to 2020,”Sci. Robotics, vol. 6, no. 60, 2021

2010
[6]

Probabilistic reachability and safety for controlled discrete time stochastic hybrid systems,

A. Abate, M. Prandini, J. Lygeros, and S. Sastry, “Probabilistic reachability and safety for controlled discrete time stochastic hybrid systems,”Automatica, vol. 44, no. 11, pp. 2724–2734, 2008

2008
[7]

M. L. Puterman,Markov Decision Processes: Discrete Stochastic Dynamic Programming. John Wiley & Sons, 2014

2014
[8]

Kolobov,Planning with Markov Decision Processes: An AI Perspective, ser

Mausam and A. Kolobov,Planning with Markov Decision Processes: An AI Perspective, ser. Synthesis Lectures on Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. Morgan & Claypool Publishers, 2012

2012
[9]

Optimal active sensing with process and measurement noise,

M. Cognetti, P. Salaris, and P. R. Giordano, “Optimal active sensing with process and measurement noise,” inICRA, 2018, pp. 2118–2125

2018
[10]

Thrun, W

S. Thrun, W. Burgard, and D. Fox,Probabilistic Robotics. MIT Press, 2005

2005
[11]

Robot motion planning in dynamic, uncertain environments,

N. E. Du Toit and J. W. Burdick, “Robot motion planning in dynamic, uncertain environments,”IEEE Trans. Robotics, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 101–115, 2011

2011
[12]

Qualitative controller synthesis for consumption Markov decision processes,

F. Blahoudek, T. Brazdil, P. Novotny, M. Ornik, P. Thangeda, and U. Topcu, “Qualitative controller synthesis for consumption Markov decision processes,” inCAV, 2020, pp. 421–447

2020
[13]

Efficient strategy synthesis for mdps with resource constraints,

F. Blahoudek, P. Novotn `y, M. Ornik, P. Thangeda, and U. Topcu, “Efficient strategy synthesis for mdps with resource constraints,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Contr., vol. 68, no. 8, pp. 4586–4601, 2022

2022
[14]

The temporal logic of programs,

A. Pnueli, “The temporal logic of programs,” inFOCS, 1977, pp. 46–57

1977
[15]

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,” inIJCAI, 2013, pp. 854–860

2013
[16]

LTL receding horizon control for finite deterministic systems,

X. C. Ding, M. Lazar, and C. Belta, “LTL receding horizon control for finite deterministic systems,”Automatica, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 399–408, 2014

2014
[17]

Hierarchical LTL-task MDPs for multi-agent coordination through auctioning and learning,

P. Schillinger, M. B ¨urger, and D. V . Dimarogonas, “Hierarchical LTL-task MDPs for multi-agent coordination through auctioning and learning,”IJRR, vol. 38, no. 2–3, pp. 213–242, 2019

2019
[18]

Probabilistic motion planning under temporal tasks and soft constraints,

M. Guo and M. M. Zavlanos, “Probabilistic motion planning under temporal tasks and soft constraints,”IEEE Trans. Autom. Control., vol. 63, no. 12, pp. 4051–4066, 2018

2018
[19]

Reinforcement learning based temporal logic control with maximum probabilistic satisfaction,

M. Cai, S. Xiao, B. Li, Z. Li, and Z. Kan, “Reinforcement learning based temporal logic control with maximum probabilistic satisfaction,” inICRA, 2021, pp. 806–812

2021
[20]

Formal methods for autonomous systems,

T. Wongpiromsarn, M. Ghasemi, M. Cubuktepe, G. Bakirtzis, S. Carr, M. O. Karabag, C. Neary, P. Gohari, and U. Topcu, “Formal methods for autonomous systems,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01258, 2023

work page arXiv 2023
[21]

Stochastic games for interactive manipulation domains,

K. Muvvala, A. M. Wells, M. Lahijanian, L. E. Kavraki, and M. Y . Vardi, “Stochastic games for interactive manipulation domains,” in ICRA, 2024, pp. 2513–2519

2024
[22]

Planning under risk and knightian uncertainty,

F. W. Trevizan, F. G. Cozman, and L. N. de Barros, “Planning under risk and knightian uncertainty,” inIJCAI, 2007, pp. 2023–2028

2007
[23]

Mixed probabilistic and nondeterministic factored planning through Markov decision processes with set-valued transitions,

——, “Mixed probabilistic and nondeterministic factored planning through Markov decision processes with set-valued transitions,” in Workshop on A Reality Check for Planning and Scheduling Under Uncertainty at ICAPS, 2008, p. 62

2008
[24]

The trembling-hand problem for LTLf planning,

P. Yu, S. Zhu, G. De Giacomo, M. Kwiatkowska, and M. Y . Vardi, “The trembling-hand problem for LTLf planning,” inIJCAI, 2024, pp. 3631–3641

2024
[25]

Planning with linear temporal logic specifications: Handling quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainty,

P. Yu, Y . Li, D. Parker, and M. Kwiatkowska, “Planning with linear temporal logic specifications: Handling quantifiable and unquantifiable uncertainty,”arXiv preprint arXiv:2502.19603, 2025

work page arXiv 2025
[26]

Planning with temporally extended goals using heuristic search,

J. A. Baier and S. McIlraith, “Planning with temporally extended goals using heuristic search,” inICAPS, 2006, pp. 342–345

2006
[27]

Billingsley,Probability and Measure

P. Billingsley,Probability and Measure. Wiley, 1995

1995
[28]

Hybrid compo- sitional reasoning for reactive synthesis from finite-horizon specifica- tions,

S. Bansal, Y . Li, L. M. Tabajara, and M. Y . Vardi, “Hybrid compo- sitional reasoning for reactive synthesis from finite-horizon specifica- tions,” inAAAI, 2020, pp. 9766–9774

2020
[29]

Compositional approach to translate LTLf/LDLf into deterministic finite automata,

G. De Giacomo and M. Favorito, “Compositional approach to translate LTLf/LDLf into deterministic finite automata,” inICAPS, 2021, pp. 122–130

2021
[30]

DAG-based compositional ap- proaches for LTLf to DFA conversions,

S. Bansal, Y . Kankariya, and Y . Li, “DAG-based compositional ap- proaches for LTLf to DFA conversions,” inFMCAD, 2024, pp. 227– 235

2024