Multi-Agent Temporal Logic Planning via Penalty Functions and Block-Coordinate Optimization
Authors: Eleftherios E. Vlahakis, Arash Bahari Kordabad, Lars Lindemann, Pantelis Sopasakis, Sadegh Soudjani, Dimos V. Dimarogonas
Organizations: the Division of Computer Engineering and Computer Science, University West, 46132, Trollhättan, Sweden · the Max Planck Institute for Software Systems, Kaiserslautern, Germany · the Automatic Control Laboratory, ETH Zürich, 8092, Zürich, Switzerland · the School of Electronics, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Queen’s University Belfast, Northern Ireland, BT9 5BN, UK · the Division of Decision and Control Systems, School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, 10044, Stockholm, Sweden
Multi-agent planning under Signal Temporal Logic (STL) is often hindered by collaborative tasks that lead to computational challenges due to the inherent high dimensionality of the problem, preventing scalable synthesis with satisfaction guarantees. To address this, we formulate STL planning as an optimization program under multi-agent STL constraints and introduce a penalty-based unconstrained relaxation that can be efficiently solved via a Block-Coordinate Gradient Descent (BCGD) method, where each block corresponds to a single agent's decision variables, thereby mitigating complexity. By utilizing a quadratic penalty function defined via smooth STL semantics, we show that BCGD iterations converge to a stationary point of the penalized problem under standard regularity assumptions. To enforce feasibility, the BCGD solver is embedded within a two-layer optimization scheme: inner BCGD updates are performed for a fixed penalty parameter, which is then increased in an outer loop to progressively improve multi-agent STL robustness. The proposed framework enables scalable computations and is validated through various complex multi-robot planning scenarios.
Figures & tables
Solver
R2AM
R2AMCA
RURAMCA
BCGD (L)
2.43 ± 0.43 (13.88 ± 11.72) [100]
2.99 ± 1.29 (10.18 ± 10.36) [100]
14.07 ± 4.02 (6.55 ± 6.49) [100]
LBFGS (L)
1.62 ± 4.96 (23.13 ± 86.51) [92]
4.19 ± 21.69 (0.66 ± 17.55) [68]
10.23 ± 16.31 (1.62 ± 8.91) [75]
BCGD (U)
182.86 ± 138.07 (9.36 ± 14.48) [100]
223.44 ± 130.38 (5.58 ± 6.23) [100]
337.31 ± 83.81 (3.23 ± 3.44) [100]
LBFGS (U)
83.77 ± 295.29 (4.46 ± 18.00) [88]
97.72 ± 311.45 (3.46 ± 8.24) [83]
180.05 ± 303.65 (2.42 ± 16.88) [80]
TABLE I : Runtime (s), robustness ( ρ×103 ), and feasibility statistics over 100 randomized permutations of the agents’ initial conditions in Fig. 1 . Entries report mean ± std (robustness in parentheses), with feasibility rates in brackets. L and U denote linear and unicycle dynamics. For each scenario, the solver achieving the lower 95%-quantile runtime is highlighted in bold.
Fig. 2 : Runtime boxplots for scalability of BCGD-PM over 100 randomized initial-condition permutations.
Department of Computer Science, University of New Orleans, New Orleans, LA 70148, USA · Knight Foundation School of Computing and Information Sciences, Florida International University, Miami, FL 33199, USA · Providence College, Department of Mathematics & Computer Science, Providence, RI 02918, USA