Making Task Abstractions Executable: Control-Aware Layout Repair for a Fixed Controller
Organizations: Chung-Ang University · Hanyang University · Carnegie Mellon University · KAIST
Abstract
A task abstraction can specify the intended events while its spatial layout prevents a fixed agent and controller from completing them. Starting from a supplied structured task record, we compile whole-task tracking, clearance, and actuation requirements into auditable affine layout constraints. We repair only declared continuous coordinates, preserving event order, timing, topology, and the controller. A most-violated-row update admits conditional finite-certification and net-displacement bounds; a same-compiler quadratic projection separates the representation from the optimizer. On three researcher-authored task abstractions, both backends certify all three layouts and complete all 300 fresh paired rollouts per backend. A risk-target sweep also exposes fixed event tests that the chosen certificate cannot satisfy through layout edits alone.
Figures & tables
| Task | Fixed event sequence | Isolates | Editable geometry |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Switch Door Goal | Door clearance | Door half-width |
| P2 | Checkpoint 1 Checkpoint 2 Goal | Checkpoint clearance | Event -coordinates |
| P3 | Switch 1 Switch 2 Goal | Fixed-time travel | Event -coordinates |
| Successes (of 100) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Cert. | P1 | P2 | P3 | Overall | Sat. | Edit |
| Raw | 0/3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/300 | 100 | 0 |
| Geometry-only | 0/3 | 1 | 12 | 99 | 112/300 | 100 | 0.272 |
| Ours | 3/3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 300/300 | 0 | 0.935 |
| QP-Projection | 3/3 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 300/300 | 0 | 0.933 |
Appendix figures & tables15 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| ID | Task description | Fixed task abstraction | Editable spatial realization |
|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Switch Door Goal. | Three ordered monitored events; fixed event endpoints, timing, and event-controlled door logic. | Door half-width; the initial opening is insufficient. |
| P2 | Ordered checkpoints Goal. | Checkpoint 1, checkpoint 2, and goal, in that order; fixed horizontal coordinates, corridor, timing, and gate tolerances. | Three event heights; the initial targets lie too close to the walls. |
| P3 | Switch 1 Switch 2 Goal. | Three ordered events; fixed start, transverse coordinates, minimum ordering distance, timing, and gate tolerances. | Three horizontal event positions; initial travel demands are large relative to time and input limits. |
| Task | Method | Succ. | Coll. | Deadl. | Sat. | Track |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Raw | 0/3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| P1 | Geometry-only | 0/3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| P1 | Ours | 3/3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P1 | QP-Projection | 3/3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P2 | Raw | 0/3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| P2 | Geometry-only | 1/3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Task | Method | Succ. | 95% CI | Coll. | Deadl. | Sat. | Track |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Raw | 0/100 | [0,3.7] | 100 | 0 | 0 | 89 |
| P1 | Geometry-only | 1/100 | [0.177,5.45] | 99 | 0 | 0 | 77 |
| P1 | Ours | 100/100 | [96.3,100] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P1 | QP-Projection | 100/100 | [96.3,100] | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| P2 | Raw | 0/100 | [0,3.7] | 100 | 0 | 0 | 86 |
| P2 | Geometry-only | 12/100 | [7,19.8] | 88 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Task | Method | Full cert. | Full margin | Original margin | Physical edit [m] | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Raw | no | 0 | -0.106 | -0.0528 | 0 |
| P1 | Geometry-only | no | 0.011 | -0.0947 | -0.0473 | 0.0055 |
| P1 | Ours | yes | 0.107 | 0.001 | 5.00e-04 | 0.0533 |
| P1 | QP-Projection | yes | 0.106 | 0 | 5.00e-13 | 0.0528 |
| P2 | Raw | no | 0 | -0.126 | -0.0628 | 0, 0, 0 |
| P2 | Geometry-only | no | 0.0537 | -0.0947 | -0.0473 | -0.0155, 0.0155, -0.0155 |
| Task | Iter. | Original res. | Stationarity | Complementarity | Signed gap | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | 1 | 0 | -5.00e-13 | 2.78e-17 | 0 | 0 |
| P2 | 2 | 0 | -5.00e-13 | 1.11e-16 | 0 | 6.94e-18 |
| P3 | 2 | 9.99e-16 | -9.99e-13 | 1.78e-15 | 4.16e-15 | -2.22e-15 |
| [m] | [m/s] | [m/s 2 ] | Outcome (P1–P3) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.50 | 0.0429 | 0.0421 | 0.115 | 0.462 | certified |
| 0.20 | 0.107 | 0.0666 | 0.181 | 0.73 | false constant test |
| 0.10 | 0.215 | 0.0942 | 0.256 | 1.03 | false constant test |
| 0.05 | 0.429 | 0.133 | 0.362 | 1.46 | false constant test |
| Workers | Jobs | Time [s] | Episodes/s | Peak RSS [GiB] | Stable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 0.255 | 35.3 | 0.115 | True |
| 2 | 9 | 0.284 | 31.6 | 0.117 | True |
| 3 | 9 | 0.225 | 40 | 0.118 | True |
| Task | Operation | Median [ms] | IQR [ms] | Repeats |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| P1 | Full compiler | 0.0393 | 0.00395 | 200 |
| P1 | Geometry-only | 0.0095 | 5.00e-04 | 200 |
| P1 | Ours | 0.0096 | 0.00193 | 200 |
| P1 | QP + audit | 0.987 | 0.322 | 200 |
| P2 | Full compiler | 0.0715 | 0.00377 | 200 |
| P2 | Geometry-only | 0.0183 | 0.00835 | 200 |
Explore similar work
Roomer: Reflective Object-Grounded Model Editing and Repair for 3D Indoor Layout Synthesis
RoState'' and uses RoReview'' to bind measured violations to implicated objects. A geometry-conditioned vision-language model planner proposes a structured local edit, while a deterministic solver validates it and generates a finite set of candidate edits when needed. Each candidate is committed only if full-scene verification confirms that it resolves the target violation without new hard violations or broken protected constraints. We train the planner on Roomer-CC, a controlled-corruption dataset that pairs faulty layouts with object-grounded violation evidence and known-feasible inverse StatePatches. Since existing benchmarks rarely assess whether physically valid layouts are usable, we introduce Roomer-Eval to assess distributional quality, physical validity, and practical usability. Experiments show that Roomer repairs residual violations while preserving valid regions, improves physical validity and usability, and transfers across external generators.