All approaches claim to have some ability to ignore variables which
are irrelevant because the condition they track is
unreachable:13PLTLMIN detects them through preprocessing, PLTLSTR exploits
the ability of structured solution methods to ignore them, and FLTL ignores them when progression never exposes them. However, given that
the mechanisms for avoiding irrelevance are so different, we expect
corresponding differences in their effects. On experimental
investigation, we found that the differences in performance are best
illustrated by looking at response formulae, which assert that if a
trigger condition
is reached then a reward will be received upon
achievement of the goal
in, resp. within,
steps. In PLTL,
this is written
, resp.
, and in $FLTL,
, resp.
When the goal is unreachable, PLTL approaches perform
well. As it is always false, the goal
does not lead to behavioural
distinctions. On the other hand, while constructing the MDP, FLTL considers the successive progressions of
without being able
to detect that it is unreachable until it actually fails to
happen. This is exactly what the blindness of blind minimality amounts
to. Figure 15 illustrates the difference in
performance as a function of the number
of propositions involved
in the SPUDD-LINEAR domain, when the reward is of the form
, with
unreachable.
Figure 15:
Response Formula with Unachievable Goal
![\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{figures/unachievablegoal}](img418.png) |
Figure 16:
Response Formula with Unachievable Trigger
![\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{figures/unachievablecondition}](img419.png) |
FLTL shines when the trigger is unreachable. Since
never
happens, the formula will always progress to itself, and the goal,
however complicated, is never tracked in the generated MDP. In this
situation PLTL approaches still consider
and its
subformulae, only to discover, after expensive preprocessing for
PLTLMIN, after reachability analysis for PLTLSTR(A), and never for
PLTLSTR, that these are irrelevant. This is illustrated in
Figure 16, again with SPUDD-LINEAR and a
reward of the form
, with
unreachable.
Sylvie Thiebaux
2006-01-20