Home

Generalized Reactivity(1) (GR(1)) Synthesis has been a significant tool in the automatic generation of controllers that satisfy a given set of logical specifications[1][2]. Since its inception, it has provided a systematic approach to describe the desired behavior of a system in response to its environment. The theoretical foundation of GR(1) Synthesis lies in the intersection of logic, automata, and system design. It uses a fragment of Linear Temporal Logic(LTL)[3] to express properties about the future behavior of a system, translating these logical specifications into an automaton, a mathematical model of computation. The automaton represents the system's behavior as a state-transition graph, where the system and the environment interact. The goal of GR(1) Synthesis is to design a controller for the system that ensures the system's behavior satisfies the given specifications, regardless of the environment's actions.

On the other hand, Reinforcement Learning(RL)[4]-[6] is a type of machine learning where an agent learns to make decisions by interacting with its environment. The agent learns from the consequences of its actions, rather than from being explicitly taught, adjusting its behavior based on the positive or negative feedback it receives. This trial-and-error approach allows the agent to learn the optimal policy that maximizes the cumulative reward over time. Reinforcement learning has been successfully applied in various fields such as game playing, robotics, resource management, and many others.

From the perspective of system controller generation, comparing GR(1) Synthesis and Reinforcement Learning is meaningful. While GR(1) Synthesis provides an optimal solution by exploring all possible states of the system and the environment, Reinforcement Learning offers a suboptimal but feasible solution even in large state spaces where finding an optimal solution is computationally infeasible.

The contributions of this paper are manifold and significant to the field of controller generation. Firstly, this paper presents a novel comparative study of GR(1) Synthesis and Reinforcement Learning, two methods that have been traditionally studied in isolation. By juxtaposing these two methods in the context of the Moving Obstacle Evasion Problem, this paper provides new insights into their relative strengths and weaknesses. Secondly, this paper demonstrates, through empirical results, that Reinforcement Learning can serve as a viable alternative to GR(1) Synthesis in scenarios where the latter is unrealizable. This is a significant finding as it expands the range of problems that can be effectively addressed using Reinforcement Learning. Thirdly, this paper provides a detailed analysis of the performance of the controllers generated by both methods. The analysis reveals that while GR(1) Synthesis generates optimal controllers, Reinforcement Learning generates suboptimal but satisfactory controllers. This finding contributes to our understanding of the trade-offs between optimality and realizability in controller generation. Lastly, this paper suggests that in scenarios with large state spaces and where finding an optimal solution is challenging, Reinforcement Learning can be an appropriate choice. This is a valuable insight for practitioners in the field, guiding them in choosing the most suitable method for their specific problem setting. In sum, this paper makes significant contributions to the field by providing a comprehensive comparison of GR(1) Synthesis and Reinforcement Learning, demonstrating the viability of Reinforcement Learning as an alternative to GR(1) Synthesis, and offering valuable insights into the trade-offs in controller generation.

In conclusion, this paper provides a comparative study between GR(1) Synthesis and RL from the perspective of system controller generation, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of both methods and offering insights into their applicability in different scenarios.

The structure of this paper is as follows. In Chapters 2 and 3, the theoretical backgrounds of GR(1) Synthesis and RL are introduced. Chapter 4 describes the experiment of solving the Moving Obstacle Evasion Problem using reinforcement learning. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes with a summary and conclusion.

GR(1) synthesis is a formal method in computer science that provides a systematic approach to automatically generate a controller, a strategy, plan, or policy, that satisfies a given set of logical specifications. These specifications describe the desired behavior of a system in response to its environment. The theoretical foundation of GR(1) synthesis lies in the intersection of logic, automata, and system design. The specifications for the system are expressed in a logical formalism using variables to represent the state of the system and logical conditions to describe how these variables evolve over time. The logic used in GR(1) synthesis is a fragment of LTL, which allows expressing properties about the future behavior of a system.

The logical specifications are translated into an automaton, a mathematical model of computation. The automaton represents the system's behavior as a state-transition graph. In the context of GR(1) synthesis, the automaton is a game structure where two players, the system and the environment, interact. The goal of GR(1) synthesis is to design a controller for the system that ensures the system's behavior satisfies the given specifications, regardless of the environment's actions. This is achieved by constructing a winning strategy for the system in the game structure.

The term generalized reactivity(1) refers to the class of specifications that GR(1) synthesis can handle. These specifications consist of assumptions about the environment and guarantees about the system's behavior. The assumptions and guarantees are expressed as LTL formulas. The 1 in GR(1) indicates that the synthesis problem can be solved in polynomial time in the size of the game structure, making GR(1) synthesis a practical method for controller synthesis in many applications.

A GR(1) specification is a type of specification used in the field of formal methods, particularly in the context of controller synthesis. It is a fragment of LTL that allows for the expression of assumptions about the environment and guarantees about the system's behavior. The GR(1) specification is used to describe the desired behavior of a system in response to its environment.

The GR(1) specification is structured as follows: It consists of environment variables X and system variables Y. The environment variables represent the state of the environment in which the system operates, and the system has no control over these variables; they are determined by external factors. The system variables represent the state of the system, and the system has control over these variables and can change them in response to the environment.

The GR(1) specification also includes initial conditions ϕ_i, transition relations ϕ_t, and guarantees ϕ_g. The initial conditions are a propositional logic formula over X∪Y that specifies the initial state of the system and the environment. The transition relations is sub-formula ϕ_x ∧ ϕ_y, where ϕ_x is a formula in LTL over X∪Y∪X′ and ϕ_y is a formula in LTL over X∪Y∪X′∪Y′. Here, X′ and Y′ represent the next state of the environment and system variables, respectively. ϕ_x specifies the possible transitions of the environment variables, and ϕ_y specifies the possible transitions of the system variables in response to the current state of the system and the environment.

The guarantees are a sub-formula ϕ_j ∧ ϕ_p, where ϕ_j and ϕ_p are sets of LTL formulas over X∪Y. The formulas in ϕ_j are called justice requirements, and the formulas in ϕ_p are called progress requirements. The justice requirements specify conditions that the system must satisfy infinitely often, and the progress requirements specify conditions that the system must eventually satisfy.

In the context of GR(1) specifications, the terms realizable and unrealizable refer to whether a controller can be synthesized that satisfies the given specifications.

A GR(1) specification is said to be realizable if there exists a controller that, for every possible behavior of the environment that satisfies the environment assumptions, can ensure the system behavior satisfies the system guarantees. In other words, a realizable specification is one for which there exists a winning strategy for the system in the game structure defined by the specification.

Formally, a GR(1) specification ϕ_i ∧ ϕ_t ∧ ϕ_g is realizable if there exists a function f : X→Y such that for every sequence x₀, x₁, x₂, .... of environment states that satisfies the environment transition relation ϕ_x, the sequence y₀, y₁, y₂, ... of system states defined by y_i = f(x_i) forall i ≥ 0 satisfies the system transition relation ϕ_y and the system guarantees ϕ_g.

On the other hand, a GR(1) specification is said to be unrealizable if no such controller exists. That is, no matter what strategy the system follows, there is some behavior of the environment that satisfies the environment assumptions but leads to a violation of the system guarantees. An unrealizable specification is one for which the environment has a winning strategy in the game structure defined by the specification.

RL is a subfield of machine learning that focuses on how an agent can learn to make optimal decisions by interacting with an environment. The fundamental goal of RL is to find a policy, denoted as π, which is a mapping from states to actions π : S→A, that maximizes the expected cumulative reward over time. The agent, through a process of trial and error, learns to associate states of the environment with actions that yield the highest reward.

The general model of RL involves several key components: states S, actions A, and rewards R. The agent interacts with the environment in discrete time steps. At each time step t, the agent observes the current state of the environment s_t ∈ S, selects an action a_t ∈ A(s_t) based on its policy π, receives a reward r_t = R(s_t, a_t), and transitions to a new state s_t+1. The process continues until a termination condition is met.

In RL, the process of approximating a function often involves the use of a loss function. The loss function quantifies the difference between the predicted output of the function approximator and the actual output. The goal is to adjust the parameters of the function approximator to minimize this loss.

Let's denote the function approximator as f, which is parameterized by θ. Given an input state s, the function approximator predicts the value of each possible action a under the current policy π, denoted as f(s, avertθ).

The actual value of taking action a in state s under policy π, denoted as Q•π(s,a), is typically estimated using a technique such as Temporal Difference(TD) learning or Monte Carlo methods.

The loss function L(θ) is then defined as the squared difference between the predicted and actual action values:

The expectation E is taken over the distribution of states and actions experienced by the agent.

The parameters θ of the function approximator are updated to minimize this loss. This is typically done using gradient descent, a popular optimization algorithm. The update rule for gradient descent is:

where α is the learning rate, and ∇θ is the gradient of the loss function with respect to the parameters θ.

By iteratively applying this update rule, the function approximator learns to better predict the action values, and thus the agent learns to make better decisions.

In conclusion, this paper presented a comparative study of GR(1) Synthesis and RL in the context of controller synthesis for the Moving Obstacle Evasion Problem. The study demonstrated that while GR(1) Synthesis provides an optimal solution when it is realizable, it fails to generate a controller in certain configurations. On the other hand, RL, though not providing an optimal solution, is capable of generating a controller in all configurations, offering the best-effort solution.

The research highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of both methods. GR(1) Synthesis, grounded in formal methods, guarantees the realization of the system's goals under all possible behaviors of the environment, given that the synthesis is realizable. GR(1) Synthesis faces a challenge when the state space of the environment and system is large, as the computational load increases exponentially. This is due to the fact that GR(1) Synthesis attempts to predefine the controller's actions for all possible states of the environment and system. While this method of predefining actions for all states is effective when the state space is small, it becomes computationally intensive and difficult to solve real problems as the state space grows.

On the other hand, RL can address this limitation of GR(1) Synthesis. Reinforcement learning provides a method that can efficiently learn even when the state space is large. RL approximates a function of the states of the environment and system, predicting the actions the system should take given a state. By approximating this function, RL can efficiently solve problems even when the state space is large. However, the solutions generated by RL do not offer the same guarantees as those generated by GR(1) Synthesis.

The primary contribution of this paper is the demonstration of the applicability of Reinforcement Learning (RL) in scenarios where GR(1) Synthesis is unrealizable. This opens up new possibilities for controller synthesis in complex environments where traditional formal methods may fall short. Furthermore, this study shows that RL succeeds in all configurations, providing solutions even in configurations where GR(1) Synthesis fails to generate a controller, albeit with suboptimal solutions. This suggests that RL can be an appropriate choice in scenarios with large state spaces and where finding an optimal solution is challenging. Additionally, this study provides valuable insights for researchers and practitioners in the field of controller synthesis, offering a new perspective on the potential of RL as a complementary approach to formal methods. These results demonstrate that RL can overcome the limitations of GR(1) Synthesis and serve as a powerful tool for generating controllers in larger state spaces and more complex problems. This presents a new paradigm for controller synthesis and is expected to stimulate further research in this field.

In terms of future work, this study opens up several promising directions. Firstly, while the current study has focused on the Moving Obstacle Evasion Problem, the comparative approach of GR(1) Synthesis and Reinforcement Learning could be extended to other types of control problems. It would be interesting to investigate how the two methods perform in different problem settings and whether the advantages of Reinforcement Learning observed in this study hold in other contexts. Secondly, the Reinforcement Learning method used in this study is a basic implementation. There are many advanced Reinforcement Learning algorithms and techniques that could potentially improve the performance of the controller. Future work could explore the use of these advanced methods and compare their performance with GR(1) Synthesis. Thirdly, this study has used a specific set of parameters for the Reinforcement Learning algorithm. The choice of parameters can significantly affect the performance of the algorithm. Future work could investigate the impact of different parameter settings on the results. Lastly, this study has considered a deterministic environment. In many real-world situations, the environment is stochastic and unpredictable. Future work could explore how GR(1) Synthesis and Reinforcement Learning perform in such stochastic environments. By exploring these directions, future work can build on the findings of this study and further our understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of GR(1) Synthesis and Reinforcement Learning in controller generation.