Simple Temporal Problems with Preferences and Uncertainty

Kristen Brent Venable
Dept. of Pure and Applied Mathematics University of Padova, Italy

Neil Yorke-Smith
IC–Parc Imperial College London, U.K.

Abstract
Simple Temporal Problems (STPs) are a restriction of the framework of Temporal Constraint Satisfaction Problems, tractable in polynomial time. Their expressiveness has been extended independently in two ways. First, to account for uncontrollable events, to Simple Temporal Problems with Uncertainty (STPUs). Second, more recently, to account for soft temporal preferences, to Simple Temporal Problems with Preferences (STPPs). The motivation for both extensions is from real-life problems; and indeed such problems may well necessitate both preferences and uncertainty. Our research proposes the study of Simple Temporal Problems with Preferences and Uncertainty (STPPUs), and puts forward two notions of controllability for their resolution.

points (events) and constraints represent the relations between them. The restriction to at most one interval in each temporal constraint — hence the constraints have form Ð Ü  Ü Ù — entails that a STP can be solved in polynomial time. By solved, we mean that consistency is decided and the minimal network obtained; applying path consistency suffices for this. In contrast, the general TCSP is NP-complete.

Simple Temporal Problems with Preferences
To address the lack of expressiveness in standard STPs, Khatib et al. (2001) introduced the Simple Temporal Problem with Preferences (STPP). The framework merges temporal CSP with the standard semiring-based soft constraints (Bistarelli, Montanari, & Rossi 1997). In addition to the Ü   Ü Ù of a STP, soft hard temporal constraints Ð temporal constraints are specified by means of a preference function on an interval, Á , where Á Ð Ù ℄ and is a set of preference values, part of a semiring · ¢ ¼ ½ . (A semiring is a tuple · ¢ ¼ ½ such that: is a set and ¼ ½ ¾ ; · is commutative, associative and ¼ is its unit element; ¢ is associative, distributes over ·, ½ is its unit element and ¼ is its absorbing element. A c-semiring is a semiring in which · is idempotent, ½ is its absorbing element and ¢ is commutative.) In general, solving a STPP is NP-complete. However, on making three assumptions, notably one about the shape of the preference functions, solving is polynomial in the number of timepoints: (1) the preference functions are semiconvex, (2) the semiring multiplicative operator is idempotent, and (3) the values of the semiring are totally ordered. Rossi et al. (2002b) present two solvers for STPP. The first, Path-solver, enforces path consistency in the constraint network, then takes the sub-interval on each constraint corresponding to the best preference level. This gives a standard STP, which is then solved for the first solution by back-free search. The complexity is polynomial, but the performance can be poor because a pointwise (discrete) representation is used for the intervals and the preference functions. The second solver, Chop-Solver, is less general but more efficient. It finds the maximum level « at which the preferences can be ‘chopped’, i.e. the intervals are reduced to the set Ü Ü ¾ Á ´Üµ « of values mapped to at least « by the preference functions. This set is a simple interval for each

Motivation
Research on temporal reasoning, once exposed to the difficulties of real-life problems, can be found lacking both expressiveness and flexibility. Planning and scheduling for satellite observations, for example, involves not only quantitative temporal constraints between events and qualitative temporal ordering of events, but also soft temporal preferences and contingent events over which the agent has no control. For example, slewing and scanning activities should not overlap, but may if necessary. On the other hand, the duration of failure recovery procedures is not under the direct control of the satellite executive. To address the lack of expressiveness of hard constraints, preferences can be added to the framework; to address the lack of flexibility to contingency, handling of uncertainty can be added. Some real-world problems, however, have need for both. It is this requirement that motivates us here.

Background
Temporal Constraint Satisfaction Problems
In a temporal constraint problem, variables denote timepoints or intervals, and constraints represent the possible temporal relations between them. Temporal constraints can be quantitative (distance between timepoints) or qualitative (relative position of temporal objects). Dechter, Meiri, & Pearl (1991) introduced the quantitative Temporal CSP (TCSP) and its restricted subclass, the Simple Temporal Problem (STP). Variables Ü represent time-

We can now state formally the definition of a STPPU. just as in a STPP. however. The former. Every solution to the STPPU has a global preference value. he observes rather than executes. since it interleaves scheduling. and we seek a solution which maximises this value. The solutions of this STP are the solutions of the original STPP. we can extend some definitions given for STPPs and STPUs to fit STPPUs in the following way: Simple Temporal Problems under Uncertainty To address the lack of flexibility in execution of standard STPs. is a pair Á where Á Ð Ù ℄ such that Ð ´ µ   Æ´ µ Ù and Á is a contingent preference function that maps each element of the interval into an element of the preference set. ¯ decision Æ´ µ is a value assigned to an executable timepoint. which combines preferences from the definition of a STPP with contingency from the definition of a STPU. ¯ assignment ­ ´Ø µ is a value assigned by either a decision to an executable timepoint or by an observation to a contingent timepoint. fall into two classes: requirement and contingent. ¯ contingent timepoints are those points. An informal definition of a STPPU is a STPP for which the (end) timepoints are partitioned into two classes. is also in P (Morris. and is co-NP complete. in addition to hard constraints. Æ is the set of contingent timepoints. A STPU is weakly controllable if there is a viable global execution strategy: there exists at least one schedule for every realisation. the algorithms we propose for checking strong controllability of STPPUs with preferences are polynomial. or STPPUs. Note that we consider links that are hard constraints to be soft constraints with maximal preference. on executable point and contingent point . Hence we obtain a standard STP. as in a STP. in this case.) A STPU is dynamically controllable if there is a online execution strategy that depends only on observed timepoints in the past and that can always be extended to a complete schedule whatever may happen in the future. ¯ observation ´ µ is a value assigned (by Nature) to a contingent timepoint. Neither a STPP nor a STPU is adequate. just as in a STPU. More precisely. . observation and execution. but that also features uncertainty. i. By binary search. For this class of problems we consider the equivalent of Strong and Weak Controllability. The end times. Three levels of controllability are proposed: ¯ ¯ ¯ A STPU is strongly controllable if there is a fixed execution strategy that works in all realisations. as in a STP. the activities have durations specified by intervals. in all situations involving the contingent timepoints. The three notions are ordered by their strength: strong µ dynamic µ weak. Since some timepoints are not controllable by the agent. Muscettola. & Vidal 2001).Á. and is in P. and Á is a requirement preference function mapping each element of the interval into an element of the preference set of the semiring Ë ·¢¼½. . The third requires a prior knowledge of the realisation. Definition 2 (STPPU) A Simple Temporal Problem with Preferences and Uncertainty (STPPU) is a tuple È ´Æ Æ ÄÖ Ä Ë µ where: ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ Æ is the set of executable timepoints. In this paper we formally define a class of temporal constraint satisfaction problems that feature both preferences and uncertainty. just as in a STPU. In fact. surprisingly. The first requires no knowledge of the realisation. In particular we extend both notions of controllability and we give algorithms to check whether a problem satisfies their definition. ÄÖ is the set of soft requirement constraints over Ë . the solver finds the maximal « for which ËÌÈ « is consistent. an observation of all contingent timepoints. ¯ generic timepoint Ø is either an executable or a contingent timepoint. Vidal & Fargier (1999) introduced the Simple Temporal Problem under Uncertainty (STPU). (A realisation is a possible outcome of the world. Ä is the set of soft contingent constraints over Ë . whose uncontrollable date is assigned by the external world. ËÌÈ « . on generic timepoints Ø and Ø . the stronger notion of controllability of a STPU is the analogue of consistency of a STP.e. The second. where Á Ð Ù ℄ such that Ð ­ ´Ø µ   ­ ´Ø µ Ù . Controllable means the agent has a strategy to execute the timepoints under his control. Consistency is not enough to ensure temporal feasibility in the presence of contingent events. ¯ a soft requirement constraint Ö . but the latter are decided by ‘Nature’ — the agent has no control over when the task will end. while those for checking weak controllability are co-NP complete. . ¯ a soft contingent constraint . subject to all constraints. requirement and contingent. We show that adding preferences does not impact on the complexity of checking these two types of controllability. whose date is assigned by the agent. Durations of contingent links are assumed independent. The start times of all activities are assumed controlled by the agent (this brings no loss of generality). Simple Temporal Problems with Preferences and Uncertainty Consider a temporal problem that we would model naturally with preferences. Here. Definition 1 ¯ executable timepoints are those points. are decided by the agent. is a pair Á . the notion of consistency of a STP(P) is replaced by controllability. It is seen as the most realistic knowledge assumption in many practical cases. The only information known prior to observation is that nature will respect the interval on the duration. Therefore we propose what we call Simple Temporal Problems with Preferences and Uncertainty. Rather. provided the three above assumptions hold.

which we will call ÈÓÔØ . with the structure we have just described will be referred to as ÇÈÌ .¯Ë ·¢¼½ is a c-semiring. (Recall that a function Á is semi-convex if « ¾ the set of elements Ü ¾ Á ´Üµ « forms a unique interval. it squeezes some intervals and lowers some preference functions. ÔÖ ´Ûµ ¾ for all ¾ ª. As a result. more precisely. Ì sistent schedule for È . where represents the multiplicative operator of the semiring. Definition 5 (Optimal Strong Controllability) A STPPU is Optimally Strongly Controllable iff there exists a control ´Æ µ is a consequence Æ such that for all ¾ ª.e. there is no other schedule Ì ¼ consistent with projection È such that ÔÖ ´Ì ¼ µ ÔÖ ´Ì µ). we can conclude that É É É É We can now give two different types of controllability which take into account both contingency and preferences. ÔÖ ´Æµ Ö Æ´ µ Æ´ µ ´Æ ´ µ   Æ ´ µµ. Definition 7 (Optimal Weak Controllability) A STPPU is Optimally Weakly Controllable iff for all ¾ ª there exists a control sequence Æ such that Ì ´Æ µ is a consistent schedule for projection È . the intervals consist of a minimal STP (i. Ö We say a schedule Ì is a complete assignment to the timepoints. a control sequence ÆÌ and a situation ÛÌ ÛÌ ÛÌ Ì ´ µ   ÆÌ ´ µ (we will write Ì ´ÆÌ Ì µµ. which we will call ÓÔØ . Of course. returns a STPU. the control sequence is said to be complete. and the original intervals on all the contingent constraints. i. Now for checking Strong Controllability. which corresponds to some sub-intervals of Á . The first is Path-Solver (Rossi et al. and preference function Á acts on each interval as the preference function of the soft constraint in È . and ÔÖ ´Ì µ «. just like for a control sequence it can be complete or partial. ÔÖ ´Ì µ: contingent duration is any point in interval Á of contingent constraint . iff for all ¾ ª there µ is a conexists a control sequence Æ such that Ì ´Æ sistent schedule for projection È . We will call this subalgorithm Soft-PC-2. Every schedule is associated with a pref´ erence. which checks if a STPU is Strongly Controllable. The algorithm we propose relies on two known algorithms. 2002a) which enforces path consistency on a STPP. and ÔÖ ´Ì µ «. In particular we can consider function ÁÍ (‘Ignore Uncertainty’) that maps a STPPU È ´Æ Æ ÄÖ Ä Ë µ into STPP ÁÍ ´È µ Á (Rossi et al. We will call ÈÓÔØ the STPU obtained considering the subintervals mapped into ÓÔØ on all the requirement constraints after Soft-PC-2. The main idea is to apply Strong-Controllability to a special STPU.e. At the end. Any STPPU can be treated as a STPP ignoring the fact that some constraints are contingent. The procedure that. space of complete situations of the STPPU is the Carteн Ù½ ℄ ¢ ¢ sian product of all contingent interval ª Ð Ù ℄. since we are not interested in retrieving an actual solution. ¯ ¯ ¯ Definition 4 (Schedule) A schedule Ì is a complete assignment to all the timepoints of STPPU È . every control sequence is associated with a preference value. 2002a) where the set of intervals Á is the set of all the intervals of soft constraints in ÄÖ and Ä . otherwise partial. ´ µ   Æ´ µ. situation (or realisation) is an element ½ of ª. namely semi-convexity (Rossi et al. all the preference functions reach the same maximum preference level. Checking Optimal Strong Controllability and «-Strong Controllability In this section we describe an algorithm that checks. iff there exists a control sequence Æ such that for all ¾ ª. control sequence Æ of the STPPU an assignment of the executable time points Æ Æ´ ½ µ Æ´ Ò µ . The second is Strong-Controllability (Vidal & Ghallab 1996). simply ÔÖ ´Ì µ ´ ´­ Ì µµ ¢ ÔÖ ´ÛÌ µ. if any contingent constraint is squeezed during the enforcement of path consistency. and all its solutions are optimal solutions of the original STPP. in polynomial time. a problem containing only points that appear in at least one solution). and ÔÖ ´Ì µ is optimal for È . we only need to apply the first part of Path-Solver. and ÔÖ ´Ì µ is optimal (i. . that is constructed from the STPP È ¼ obtained by first applying Path-Solver to STPPU È . First. Definition 8 («-Weak Controllability) A STPPU is «Weakly Controllable. Soft-PC-2 returns a STPP that has interesting features. Hence a schedule identifies a unique ­Ì ´Ø µ   ­Ì ´Ø µ set of requirement durations ­ Ì ­ Ì and it is said to be consistent if Ö ´­ Ì µ ¼ and Ì µ ¼. a schedule identifies an assignment ­Ì or. Notice that the semi-convexity of the preference functions guarantees that ÈÓÔØ is a STPU and not a TCSPU. Second. whether a STPPU È is Optimally Strongly Controllable. i.e.e. with « ¾ . ­ ­ ´Ø µ   ­ ´Ø µ. In order to analyse the solutions to a STPPU. the sub-STP consisting of the sub-intervals mapped by the preference functions into ÓÔØ is minimal as well. every schedule has a preference value. Á with Û Û ℄. with « ¾ . Definition 6 («-Strong Controllability) A STPPU is «Strongly Controllable. Soft-PC-2 takes as input a STPP and enforces path consistency. the projection È of STPPU È is the STPP obtained replacing in all soft contingent constraints .) We will also assume that the semiring underlying our constraint problems is the fuzzy semiring Ë ËÈ ¼ ½℄ Ñ Ü Ñ Ò ¼ ½ . if it is an assignment to all the executable timepoints. every situation is associated with a preference ´ µ. Ì ´Æ µ is a consistent schedule for projection È . given as input a path consistent STPP. In order to able to use the former algorithms we need to impose a restriction on the shape of the preference functions. we need some further preliminary definitions: ¯ ¯ Definition 3 ¯ requirement duration ­ is any point in interval Á of requirement constraint Ö . 2002a).

let us point out the main difference between «-SC and OSC. and Ð is the number of preference levels. It can be shown that a STPPU È . 8. input STPPU È . Procedures ÁÍ . where Ò ÆÖ · Æ . is Strongly Controllable (SC). as the following theorem states: Theorem 2 STPPU P. i. and runs Strong-Controllability on ÈÓÔØ . 7.the problem is not pseudo-controllable (Morris & Muscettola 2000) and hence not Strongly Controllable. Figure 2: Checking OSC using Chop-Solver. if any contingent is squeezed: return FALSE. contingent constraints maintain their intervals after the chop. However the converse does not hold. It is possible to put «-SC of a STPPU È in one-to-one correspondence to SC of a related STPU È « . we are not interested in a actual solution so we will consider an algorithm very similar to Chop-Solver. and returns the STP obtained considering only . 3. STPP  ÁÍ ´È µ. To summarise. input STPPU È . which in turn is Ç´Ò¾ µ. Figure 1: Checking OSC using Soft-PC-2. Again. Note that this is in line with results on STPUs (Vidal & Ghallab 1996). ËÌÈ ÓÔØ . similar to the one given for OSC. the complexity of checking OSC of a STPPU has the same complexity of enforcing path consistency. suppose is a situation for which some constraint has preference smaller than «. The algorithm is shown in Figure 1. At each level the consistency of the STP obtained by chopping is considered. otherwise È is not OSC. else return FALSE. ÇÈÌ and ÇÈÌ are linear in the total number of constraints. obtained simply ignoring preference functions on all the constraints. 5. is Strongly Controllable (SC). «. returning a STPU ÈÓÔØ . Figure 3 shows an algorithm to check «-SC. 2. First of all. when completed with a situation. All proofs have been omitted for lack of space. «-SC. In fact. corresponding to the highest level at which chopping leads to a consistent problem. 4. else: 6. where ÓÔØ is the maximum preference level at which Chop-Solver finds a consistent STP). iff the corresponding STPU È « is Strongly Controllable. interval. However the converse does not hold. Soft-PC-2 returns the consistent STP. OSC and «SC. STPU ÈÓÔØ ÇÈÌ ´ËÌÈ ÓÔØ µ. Another possibility is to combine Strong-Controllability with Chop-Solver (Rossi et al. 6. The following theorem. STPP à Soft-PC-2 ( ). Strong-Controllability is given ÈÓÔØ as input. Pseudocode for Chop-OSC 1. Procedure Chop(STPP. just like SC for STPUs. Furthermore. For example. is OSC iff ÈÓÔØ is SC. STPP  ÁÍ ´È µ. Having said this. We now tackle the problem of verifying whether a STPPU È is «-SC or not. the algorithm we propose for checking Optimal Strong consistency of a STPPU È first applies Soft-PC-2 to ÁÍ ´È µ. Both properties. The complexity of Strong-Controllability is the same as the complexity of PC-2. Otherwise it extracts ÈÓÔØ from path consistent ÁÍ ´È µ. obtained simply ignoring preference functions on all the constraints. Both algorithms we propose are polynomial. very similar to ÇÈÌ . Theorem 4 A STPPU È is «-Strongly Controllable. Finally. Ç´Ò¿ ¢ ʵ. imposes that the completed control sequence must have a preference at least « on all the projections. Pseudocode for Path-OSC 1. 2. Ê is the maximum range of an «-Strong Controllability. as described in the previous section. e. is Optimally Strongly Controllable iff the corresponding STPU ÈÓÔØ is Strongly Controllable.e. 5. with semi-convex preference functions. if Strong-Controllability (ÈÓÔØ ): return TRUE. relates «-SC to SC. Theorem 1 If a STPPU È is Optimally Strongly Controllable (OSC) then the STPU É. «-SC with « ÓÔØ. meaning that only subintervals mapped into preferences equal or higher than the chopping level are kept and form a STP. ÔÖ ) takes as input a STPP and a preference level.g. OSC entails the existence of a control sequence that. is optimal for the projection corresponding to that situation. If any contingent interval is squeezed during the process then the algorithm stops since the problem cannot be OSC. with semi-convex functions. Note that since « «£ . entail restrictions on the global preference associated with a schedule. STPU ÈÓÔØ ÇÈÌ ´Ã µ. Theorem 3 If a STPPU È is «-Strongly Controllable («SC) then the STPU É. else return FALSE. At this point a procedure ÇÈÌ . At each level the STPP is ‘chopped’. 4. We can conclude that both Path-OSC and Chop-OSC have a total complexity of Ç´Ò¿ ¢ Ê ¢ е. If ÈÓÔØ is SC then È is OSC. with « «£ . 3. we will always consider « «£ . Recall that Chop-Solver performs a binary search of preference levels. no STPPU can ever be «-consistent for any « «£ Ñ Ò ¾ Ø ´ µ. However this is not the case. The complexity of Soft-PC-2 and Chop-PC-2 is the same as Path-Solver and Chop-Solver (since finding an actual solution was not relevant in terms of complexity): Ç´Ò¿ ¢ Ê ¢ е. È « is the problem obtained chopping È at level «. STP ËÌÈ ÓÔØ Chop-PC-2 ( ). It is tempting to think that OSC is equivalent to ÓÔØ-SC (i. if Strong-Controllability (ÈÓÔØ ): return TRUE. 2002a). Then a projection corresponding to has only solutions with preference strictly less than «. Indeed.e. takes as input ËÌÈ ÓÔØ and replaces all the intervals that originally belonged to contingent constraints with their original intervals. Figure 2 shows the pseudocode for this algorithm. the following theorem allows us to conclude that it cannot be Optimally Strongly Controllable. Chop-PC-2. however.

We would like to thank our supervisors.. In Proc. Theorem 5 A STPPU È is Optimally Weakly Controllable (OWC) if the STPU É. Execution of temporal plans with uncertainty.. In Proc. Francesca Rossi (University of Padova) and Carmen Gervet (Imperial College London). P. Using this. In Proc. 48–52. N. The following theorem states how OWC and WC are related. 491–496. it is possible to define an algorithm Max-«-SC that performs a binary search for the highest level « at which the problem is «-SC. P. Dealing with uncertain durations in temporal constraint networks dedicated to planning. 249–263. Khatib. Venable... L. Strong-Controllability. P. 1997. 2000. U. T. of AAAI-02 Workshop on Preference in AI and CP. M. Morris. F. L. Vidal & Ghallab (1996). the procedures of lines 2–4 are linear in the total number of constraints. L. Khatib.. is Optimally Weakly Controllable (OWC) iff the STPU É. at every chop level. and Ghallab. Procedure Add-U(STP) adds the information of which constraints and points of the STP are to be considered contingent. 494–502. The first approach is to chop the STPPU at level « and then to apply Weak-Controllability to the STPU obtained.. Montanari. STP  « Chop( .. Artificial Intelligence 49:61–95. The complexity of both algorithms is exponential in the number of contingent constraints : Ç´¾ ¢ Ò¿ ¢ ʵ. Another query one might want to answer is: what is the highest level « at which È is «-SC? We propose an algorithm that is very similar to Chop-Solver in the sense that the only modification is to replace. In Proc. J. Vidal. K. together with algorithms to verify these properties. is Weakly Controllable (WC). In Proc. Meiri. Checking Optimal Weak Controllability and «-Weak Controllability We now consider the impact of adding preferences with respect to the issue of Weak Controllability. R. The complexity of Max-«-SC is also tied to the complexity of Strong-Controllability. Rossi. of IJCAI’01. of CP’02. and Vidal. 3. at most polynomial in the number of nodes. È « Add-U( « ). 2002b. Pseudocode for «-SC 1.. Khatib. Handling contingency in temporal constraint networks: From consistency to controllabilities. Morris. obtained simply ignoring preference functions on all the constraints. obtained simply ignoring preference functions on all the constraints. 4... the second approach is to chop each projection È at level « and then to check the consistency of the derived STP. T.. PC-2 with Strong-Controllability. R.. Rossi. 2. for collaborating with us on this research. Dynamic control of plans with temporal uncertainty. 5. 2001. In fact. Future Work We have introduced the Simple Temporal Problem with Preferences and Uncertainty. and Pearl. of IJCAI’01. S. as specified by the parameter ÔÖ × ÓÒ given as input. 2001. After chopping at level Ð the STP  Рobtained is transformed by function Add-U(STP) into STPU È Ð and then passed to ÓÔØ.. Temporal constraint reasoning with preferences. This allows us to conclude that to check OWC. Muscettola. The second possibility is to use the fact that a STPU is WC iff all the projections È with ¾ н Ù½ ¢ ¢ Ð Ù . of ECAI-96. Sperduti. Morris. Venable. T. and Muscettola.intervals mapped by the preference functions to at least ÔÖ . N. Figure 3: Checking «-Strong Controllability. and Rossi. However the converse does not hold. is Weakly Controllable (WC). else return FALSE. However if all the elements are mapped into strictly positive preferences. Vidal. Acknowledgements. 1996. F. Note that in general « The complexity of algorithm «-SC is clearly the same as the complexity of Strong-Controllability. and develop methods to verify and execute a DC STPPU. Dechter. Learning and solving soft temporal constraints: An experimental study. 2002a. I.. hence transforming it in STPU. and Fargier. A... 322–327. Specifically. STPP  ÁÍ ´È µ. We can conclude that the complexity of «-SC is Ç´Ò¿ ¢ ʵ. Morris. and Morris. 1999. A.. of AAAI-2000. Two solvers for tractable temporal constraints with preferences. 1991. Journal of the ACM 44(2):201–236. «). and Rossi. if Strong-Controllability (È« ): return TRUE. Semiringbased constraint solving and optimization. References Bistarelli.. and discussed Strong and Weak Controllability. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 11(1):23–45.. and Morris. Morris. P. The algorithm itself consist of applying Strong-Controllability a number of times. Temporal constraint networks. it is enough to apply algorithm Weak-Controllability proposed in . Now to check «-WC we have two different approaches. Morris. The converse fails in general because the theorem takes in account the possibility of mapping some elements of the intervals into 0. R. 6. with strictly positive preference functions. F.. In Proc. Notice that the condition on preference functions in Theorem 6 is sufficient but not necessary. H. and that of Max-«-SC is Ç´Ô ¢ Ò¿ ¢ ʵ. where Ô is proportional to the search precision required by the user. K. input STPPU P. are consistent STPs (Vidal & Ghallab 1996). We would like to extend the concept of Dynamic Controllability to STPPUs in the same way. then the correspondence becomes biuniform: Theorem 6 A STPPU È . R. F.. P. where is the number of contingent constraints.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful