The DOI matches its Crossref record; 27 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index, and 4 are not checked yet; 2 of the 6 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding
Open accessAbstract
Reinforcement learning algorithms discover policies that maximize reward, but do not necessarily guarantee safety during learning or execution phases. We introduce a new approach to learn optimal policies while enforcing properties expressed in temporal logic. To this end, given the temporal logic specification that is to be obeyed by the learning system, we propose to synthesize a reactive system called a shield. The shield monitors the actions from the learner and corrects them only if the chosen action causes a violation of the specification. We discuss which requirements a shield must meet to preserve the convergence guarantees of the learner. Finally, we demonstrate the versatility of our approach on several challenging reinforcement learning scenarios.
Verified 2026-10-24 · 4 references not checked yet
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper proposes shielded reinforcement learning, where a reactive shield synthesized from a temporal-logic safety specification and an environment abstraction monitors learner actions and replaces them only when needed to avoid unsafe behavior. It proves correctness and minimal interference, gives conditions for preserving convergence, and demonstrates safety and often faster learning in four simulated domains.
Key findings
- Shields can enforce safety during both learning and execution without changing the reward signal, and they are minimally interfering: they block an action only when it could lead to a specification violation under the abstraction.
- In the water-tank example, the product game had 602 states, and the shield prevented opening the inflow valve above level 93 and forced opening when the level became too low.
- Shield synthesis was fast in the reported experiments: under 2 seconds for the grid-world cases, about 2 seconds for the self-driving car, under 1 second for the water tank, and under 7 seconds for Pacman.
- In the 15x9 grid world, only the shielded setting with a ranking of 3 actions and no penalty found the optimal path; in the water-tank experiments, shielded Q-learning and SARSA reached optimal policies in significantly fewer episodes than unshielded versions; in the self-driving car case, the shielded learner never crashed and learned faster; in Pacman, the shielded agent cleared the game from the first episode.
Methods
- The approach specifies safety in linear temporal logic, converts it to a deterministic safety automaton, builds a conservative finite-state abstraction of the MDP environment, and solves a safety game to synthesize a shield.
- The shield receives the learner’s action or ranked list of actions and executes the highest-ranked safe action; it deviates only if every ranked action is unsafe, in which case it chooses some safe action.
- The paper proves correctness and minimal interference, constructs a product MDP to argue convergence for standard MDP learners, and evaluates the method in simulations: 9x9 and 15x9 grid worlds, a 480x480-pixel self-driving car task, the water-tank controller, and an 18x5 Pacman-like maze, using tabular Q-learning, deep Q-networks, and approximate Q-learning.
Limitations
- The paper states that the main downside is the need for an approximate model or abstraction indicating when actions are unsafe, and argues this is unavoidable when allowed actions depend on the environment state.
- The convergence argument requires that when the learner’s ranking contains no safe action, the shield’s choice among safe actions follows a fixed probability distribution over time, and it assumes the learner can observe the shield state.
- Evident from the text: the evaluation is entirely simulation-based, with no real-world deployment; the approach relies on the abstraction being conservative, and the shield must remain active after learning because unsafe actions may still be part of the learned policy.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
2 of 6 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 1 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The results show that only the unshielded versions experience negative rewards.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fig. 11 shows that both shielded (dashed lines) and unshielded Q-learning and SARSA experiments (solid lines) do reach an optimal policy.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedSingle caseTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In all of them, the learning performance of the shielded agents improved compared to the unshielded case.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, in the shielded case, pacman is always able to clear the game starting from the first episode.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the shielded implementations reach the optimal policy in a significantly shorter time than the unshielded implementations.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the computational cost of the construction of the shield depends on the complexity of the specification and a very abstract version of the system”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety in Formal Methods.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“since the shield corrects unsafe actions in the learning and deployment phases.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Related Work Safety in RL.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even though the inner working of learning algorithms is often complex, shielding with respect to critical safety specifications may be manageable (as we demonstrate in upcoming sections).”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Environment
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, to reason about when exactly a specification violation cannot be avoided, we have to give a (coarse finite-state) abstraction of the environment dynamics.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We introduce a new approach to learn optimal policies while enforcing properties expressed in temporal logic.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- Probably not a substantial claim. 17
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
At least one cited source doesn’t support this claim or points to a different paper, and none confirmed it — see the verdicts below.
In the paper
“An exploration process is called safe if no undesirable states are ever visited, which can only be achieved through the incorporation of external knowledge (García and Fernández 2015;Moldovan and Abbeel 2012).”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Related Work Safety in RL.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites García and Fernández 2015
- Disputedcites Moldovan and Abbeel 2012 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Safety Constraint section (p. 3) defines safety as preserving ergodicity with a user-specified probability, not as never visiting an undesirable state. The Safety Counter-Examples section (p. 3) explicitly argues against defining safety by safe and unsafe states. The paper uses a prior belief and information learned during exploration, but does not say that incorporating external knowledge is the only way to achieve safety. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Unlike the approach in the paper, their technique does not work with function approximation, which prevents it from being used in complex scenarios.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety in Formal Methods.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Wen, Ehlers, and Topcu 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Section V (Examples; page unavailable) shows that learning time and iterations grow as the grid grows, and describes a trade-off between performance and computation cost. This supports a scalability concern, but the paper does not say that its technique cannot work with function approximation or that it cannot be used in complex scenarios. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The plot in Fig. 10 shows that the accumulated rewards for unshielded RL (red, dashed) increases over time, but the car still crashes at the end of the simulation.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In scenarios with |rank t | = 1 (red) or with penalties (solid), the agent computes a suboptimal path.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the shielded version with |rank t | = 3 without penalty (blue, dashed) finds the optimal path, resulting in a higher average reward.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the shielded version is not only safe, but also tends to learn more rapidly.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shielded version without punishment (blue, solid) learns more rapidly than the unshielded learner and never crashes.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Experiments
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For specifications in LTL, it is known how to check if it is a safety language and how to compute a safety automaton that represents it (Kupferman and Vardi 2001).”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > The set of all distributions on X is denoted by Distr(X).
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Kupferman and Vardi 2001 source
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An abstraction of an MDP describes how its executions can possibly evolve, and provides the needed information about the environment to allow planning ahead w.r.t. the safety properties of interest.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✗ Checkable: fails✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and is independent of the state space components of the system to be controlled that are irrelevant for enforcing the safety specification.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety in Formal Methods.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It ensures safety and minimum interference.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Environment
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The shield is computed upfront from the safety part of the given system specification and an abstraction of the agent's environment dynamics.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Environment
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This boundary helps to separate the concerns, e.g., safety and correctness on one side and convergence and optimality on the other”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The latter is necessary as the valve has to stay open for at least three time steps.So as the inflow may be up to 2 liters/second during this time and the outflow may be 0, there is otherwise an overflow risk.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This approximation may have finitely many states even if the MDP has infinitely many states and/or is only approximately known.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Last but not least, the shielding framework is compatible with mechanisms such as function approximation, employed by learning algorithms in order to improve their scalability.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The algorithms we present for the computation of shields make relatively mild assumptions on the input-output structure of the learning algorithm (rather than its inner working).”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Environment
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reactive synthesis enforces ϕ s by solving a safety game built from ϕ s and an abstraction of the environment in which the policy is to be executed.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Planning ahead does not require the environment dynamics to be completely known in advance.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All of the above approaches have in common that a faithful, yet precise enough, abstraction of the physical environment is required, which is not only difficult to obtain in practice, but also introduces the mentioned computa-tional burden.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety in Formal Methods.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and provides a basis for the convergence analysis of a shielded RL algorithm.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This ensures that paths that model traces that cannot occur in M are rejected by ϕ M as early as possible.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the shield is generated using the specification, it plans ahead for this not to happen, so it must prevent the opening of the inflow valve if the level is above 93.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our setup introduces a clear boundary between the learning agent and the shield.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > The Thirty-Second AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (AAAI-18)
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that the environment is often represented as an MDP, such an abstraction has to be conservative w.r.t. the behavior of the real MDP.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety, Abstractions, and Games
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The environment is often represented as an MDP.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Control methods based on RL partly address this problem, but do not typically incorporate any correctness guarantees.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Safety in Formal Methods.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shielding exploits this possibility.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since an unsafe action is always mapped to a safe one, this does not pose a problem and the agent never has to learn to avoid unsafe actions.Consequently, the shield is (again) needed during the learning and execution phases.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Shielded Reinforcement Learning
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our experiments show, however, that in applications in which safe learning is needed, the effort to construct an abstraction is well-spent, as our approach not only makes learning safe, but also shows great promise of improving learning performance.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The agent assigns a punishment r t+1 < 0 to a 1 t and learns that selecting a 1 t at state s t is unsafe, without ever violating ϕ s .”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Shielded Reinforcement Learning
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The environment can be modeled as an MDP M = (S, s_I, A, P, R).
- The authors state this as an assumption: We have constructed an abstraction ϕ_M.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The learner accepts elements from S × Q as state input (for the state space of the shield Q).
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, there is no guarantee that unsafe actions are not part of the final policy.Therefore, the shield has to remain active even after the learning phase.”
§ Safe Reinforcement Learning via Shielding > Shielded Reinforcement Learning
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The specification ϕ is a set of properties {ϕ1,...,ϕl} such that L(ϕ) is the intersection of the languages of its properties.
“We assume ϕ is a set of properties {ϕ 1 , . . ., ϕ l } such that L(ϕ) = i L(ϕ i ).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The environment is often represented as an MDP.
“Given that the environment is often represented as an MDP, such an abstraction has to be conservative w.r.t. the behavior of the real MDP.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Safety or more generally correctness during learning and execution of controllers has attracted significantly less attention than convergence, optimality and data-efficiency of learning algorithms.
“While convergence, optimality and data-efficiency of learning algorithms are relatively well understood, safety or more generally correctness during learning and execution of controllers has attracted significantly less attention.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The environment can be modeled as an MDP M = (S, s_I, A, P, R).
“Assumption 1 (i) The environment can be modeled as an MDP M = (S, s I , A, P, R).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
We have constructed an abstraction ϕ_M.
“(ii) We have constructed an abstraction ϕ M .”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The learner accepts elements from S × Q as state input (for the state space of the shield Q).
“(iii) The learner accepts elements from S × Q as state input (for the state space of the shield Q).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Some abstraction ϕ_M = (Q_M, q_0,M, A × L, δ_M, F_M) of M for some MDP observer function f : S → L is given.
“We assume some abstraction ϕ M = (Q M , q 0,M , A × L, δ M , F M ) of M for some MDP observer function f : S → L to be given.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
ϕ_s has Σ = L × A, i.e., it reads the part of the system behavior that the abstraction is concerned with.
“Since ϕ s models a restriction of the traces of the MDP and the learner together that we want to enforce, we assume it to have Σ = L × A, i.e., it reads the part of the system behavior that the abstraction is concerned with.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
A shield S = (Q_S, q_0,S, Σ_I,S, Σ_O,S, δ_S, λ_S) is given for M and for some MDP labeling function f : S → L.
“Assume also that a shield S = (Q S , q 0,S , Σ I,S , Σ O,S , δ S , λ S ) is given for M and for some MDP labeling function f : S → L.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Whenever an action ranking is chosen by the learner that does not contain a safe action, there is a fixed probability distribution over the safe actions executed instead, constant over time.
“Note that this argument requires that whenever an action ranking is chosen by the learner that does not contain a safe action, there is a fixed probability distribution over the safe actions executed instead.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The learner has access to the state of the shield and can base its actions on it.
“Note that we made use of the fact that the learner has access to the state of the shield and can base its actions on it in this argument.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“To provide system-level, physically absolute safety guarantees, SafeCodeRL incorporates a hard shielding mechanism [37].”
From SafeCodeRL: Security-Constrained Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Trustworthy LLM-Generated IoT/CPS Software (2026) · cites this paper as [37]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Abstraction alphabet order conflicts with its transitions
MinorThe abstraction is declared to read action-label pairs, A × L, but the product-game transition supplies it label-action pairs, (l, a). These are different input orders for the same abstraction automaton.
“ϕ M = (Q M , q 0,M , A × L, δ M , F M )”
“(δ(q, (l, a)), δ M (q, (l, a))), for all (q, q M ) ∈ G, l ∈ L, a ∈ A”
Safe specification states are called error states
MinorThe game definition includes states in F × Q M among its safe states, but the example says those same states are merged into an error state. Taken literally, that reverses which specification states represent an error in the reported game construction.
“if we merge all states in F × Q M into a single error state”
“F g = (F × Q M ) ∪ (Q × (Q M \ F M )).”
Citations
Cites
Human-level control through deep reinforcement learning
Mnih, V., Kavukcuoglu, K., Silver, D., Rusu, A. A., Veness, J., Bellemare, M. G., Graves, A., Riedmiller, M., Fidjeland, A. K., Ostrovski, G., et al. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14236 · Cited by 30,357
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1998) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.1998.712192 · Cited by 27,225
Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction
Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. (2005) · IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks · doi:10.1109/tnn.2004.842673 · Cited by 25,268
(2008) · Cited by 4,811
Handbook of theoretical computer science
Leeuwen, J. V. (1990) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 4,259
Valiant, L. G. (1984) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3749740.3749746 · Cited by 4,211
Valiant, L. G. (1984) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/1968.1972 · Cited by 3,279
Emerson, E. (1991) · Handbook of Theoretical Computer Science, Volume B: Formal Models and Sematics · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-88074-1.50021-4 · Cited by 3,268
The Arcade Learning Environment: An Evaluation Platform for General Agents
Bellemare, M. G., Naddaf, Y., Veness, J., & Bowling, M. (2013) · Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research · doi:10.1613/jair.3912 · Cited by 2,161
The temporal logic of programs
Pnueli, A. (1977) · 18th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science (sfcs 1977) · doi:10.1109/sfcs.1977.32 · Cited by 1,523
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 700
Deontic Equilibrium Logic with eXplicit Negation
Cabalar, P., Ciabattoni, A., & van der Torre, L. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43619-2_34 · Cited by 6
Srouji, M., Thomas, H., Tsai, Y.-H. H., et al. (2023) · 2022 IEEE 18th International Conference on Automation Science and Engineering (CASE) · doi:10.1109/case56687.2023.10260402 · Cited by 6
CESAR: Control Envelope Synthesis via Angelic Refinements
Kabra, A., Laurent, J., Mitsch, S., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-57246-3_9 · Cited by 6
Robust AI Driving Strategy for Autonomous Vehicles
Nageshrao, S. P., Rahman, Y., Ivanović, V., et al. (2022) · Lecture notes in intelligent transportation and infrastructure · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06780-8_7 · Cited by 6
Formal Methods Assisted Training of Safe Reinforcement Learning Agents
Murugesan, A., Moghadamfalahi, M., & Chattopadhyay, A. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-20652-9_22 · Cited by 6
Safe Reinforcement Learning through Meta-learned Instincts
Grbic, D., & Risi, S. (2020) · Conference on Artificial Life (ALIFE) · doi:10.1162/isal_a_00318 · Cited by 6
ART: Abstraction Refinement-Guided Training for Provably Correct Neural NetworksPreprint
Lin, X., Zhu, H., Samanta, R., & Jagannathan, S. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1907.10662 · Cited by 6
Scalable Synthesis of Verified Controllers in Deep Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Xiong, Z., & Jagannathan, S. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2104.10219 · Cited by 7
Optimal Runtime Assurance via Reinforcement Learning
Miller, K., Zeitler, C. K., Shen, W., Hobbs, K. L., Schierman, J., Viswanathan, M., & Mitra, S. (2024) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS) · doi:10.1109/iccps61052.2024.00013 · Cited by 5
Dunlap, K. M., Hamilton, N. P., Lippay, Z. S., Shubert, M., Phillips, S. A., & Hobbs, K. L. (2025) · AIAA SciTech Forum · doi:10.2514/6.2025-0756 · Cited by 8
Probabilistic Shielding for Safe Reinforcement Learning
le Court, E. H.-D., Belardinelli, F., & Goodall, A. W. (2025) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v39i15.33767 · Cited by 10
Qi, J., Li, M., Liu, J., Shu, Y., Yu, D. S. F., Ma, S., Cui, W., Zhao, Y., Chen, Y., Jiang, R., et al. (2026) · Academia AI and Applications · doi:10.20935/acadai8260 · Cited by 20
Approximate Model-Based Shielding for Safe Reinforcement Learning
Goodall, A. W., & Belardinelli, F. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230357 · Cited by 5
Concurrent Learning of Control Policy and Unknown Safety Specifications in Reinforcement Learning
Yifru, L., & Baheri, A. (2024) · IEEE Open Journal of Control Systems · doi:10.1109/ojcsys.2024.3418306 · Cited by 6
Predictable and Performant Reactive Synthesis Modulo Theories via Functional Synthesis
Rodríguez, A., Gorostiaga, F., & Sánchez, C. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78750-8_2 · Cited by 5
Safe deployment of a reinforcement learning robot using self stabilization
Sreenivas, N. K., & Rao, S. (2022) · Intelligent Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.iswa.2022.200105 · Cited by 5
Adaptive Safety Shields for Reinforcement Learning-Based Cell Shaping
Dey, S., Mujumdar, A. P., Dasgupta, P., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management · doi:10.1109/tnsm.2022.3194566 · Cited by 5
Efficient LTL Model Checking of Deep Reinforcement Learning Systems using Policy Extraction
Jin, P., Wang, Y., & Zhang, M. (2022) · Proceedings/Proceedings of the ... International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering · doi:10.18293/seke2022-029 · Cited by 5
Correct and efficient UAV missions based on temporal planning and in-flight hybrid simulations
Marcosig, E. P., Zudaire, S., Castro, R., et al. (2023) · Robotics and Autonomous Systems · doi:10.1016/j.robot.2023.104404 · Cited by 5
Provable Correct and Adaptive Simplex Architecture for Bounded-Liveness Properties
Maderbacher, B., Schupp, S., Bartocci, E., et al. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32157-3_8 · Cited by 5
Self-citationDole, K., Gupta, A., Komp, J., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v37i12.26728 · Cited by 5
Adversarial Behavior Exclusion for Safe Reinforcement Learning
Rahman, M. A., Liu, T., & Alqahtani, S. (2023) · International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.24963/ijcai.2023/54 · Cited by 5
Safe Networked Robotics With Probabilistic Verification
Narasimhan, S. S., Bhat, S., & Chinchali, S. (2023) · IEEE Robotics and Automation Letters · doi:10.1109/lra.2023.3340525 · Cited by 6
Li, J., Cai, M., & Xiao, S. (2024) · AI and Ethics · doi:10.1007/s43681-024-00441-6 · Cited by 5
Gu, R., Tan, K., Høeg-Petersen, A. H., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75380-0_22 · Cited by 5
FISAR: Forward Invariant Safe Reinforcement Learning with a Deep Neural Network-Based Optimizer
Sun, C., Kim, D.-K., & How, J. P. (2021) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra48506.2021.9561147 · Cited by 5
Reinforcement Learning Based Distributed Control of Dissipative Networked Systems
Kosaraju, K. C., Sivaranjani, S., Suttle, W. A., et al. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Control of Network Systems · doi:10.1109/tcns.2021.3124896 · Cited by 5
Delgrange, F., Nowé, A., & Pérez, G. A. (2022) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v36i6.20602 · Cited by 5
EnergyShield: Provably-Safe Offloading of Neural Network Controllers for Energy Efficiency
Odema, M., Ferlez, J., Vaisi, G., et al. (2023) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (ICCPS) · doi:10.1145/3576841.3585935 · Cited by 5
Sandboxing Controllers for Stochastic Cyber-Physical Systems
Zhong, B., Zamani, M., & Caccamo, M. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-29662-9_15 · Cited by 5
Teaching Social Behavior through Human Reinforcement for Ad hoc Teamwork -The STAR FrameworkPreprint
Alkoby, S., Rath, A., & Stone, P. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1809.07880 · Cited by 5
It's Time to Play Safe: Shield Synthesis for Timed SystemsPreprint
Bloem, R., Jensen, P. G., Könighofer, B., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.4230/lipics.fsttcs.2021.33 · Cited by 5
Self-citationSRAD : Autonomous Decision‐Making Method for UAV Based on Safety Reinforcement Learning
Xiao, W., Luo, X., & Xie, S. (2025) · Expert Systems · doi:10.1111/exsy.70004 · Cited by 6
Shield-enhanced safe reinforcement learning control for wave energy converters
Chen, K., Lin, Z., Zhu, X., Han, Y., Huang, X., & Xiao, X. (2025) · Energy · doi:10.1016/j.energy.2025.138883 · Cited by 5
Stöckermann, P., Feudel, S., Immordino, A., et al. (2025) · Production & Manufacturing Research · doi:10.1080/21693277.2025.2582472 · Cited by 4
On-Orbit Space AI: Federated, Multi-Agent, and Collaborative Algorithms for Satellite Constellations
Wang, Z. (2026) · Algorithms · doi:10.3390/a19040318 · Cited by 4
Compositional RL Agents That Follow Language Commands in Temporal Logic
Kuo, Y., Katz, B., & Barbu, A. (2021) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2021.689550 · Cited by 4
Safe Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning via Approximate Hamilton-Jacobi Reachability
Zhu, K., Lan, F., Zhao, W., & Zhang, T. (2024) · Journal of Intelligent & Robotic Systems · doi:10.1007/s10846-024-02156-6 · Cited by 5
Adaptive Shielding via Parametric Safety Proofs
Feng, Y., Zhu, J., Platzer, A., et al. (2025) · Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages · doi:10.1145/3720450 · Cited by 4
Know the Unknowns: Addressing Disturbances and Uncertainties in Autonomous Systems : Invited Paper
Zhu, Q., Li, W., Kim, H., Xiang, Y., Wardega, K., Wang, Z., Wang, Y., Liang, H., Huang, C., Fan, J., et al. (2020) · Cited by 4
Toward System Theoretical Foundations for Human–Autonomy Teams
Steinberg, M. L. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-77283-3_5 · Cited by 4
Guiding Belief Space Planning with Learned Models for Interactive Merging
Fischer, J., Buehrle, E., Kamran, D., et al. (2022) · IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITSC) · doi:10.1109/itsc55140.2022.9922488 · Cited by 4
Safety-Aware Autonomous Systems : Preparing Robots for Life in the Real World
Tiger, M. (2022) · Linköping studies in science and technology. Dissertations · doi:10.3384/9789179295028 · Cited by 4
Guided Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning for Safe Urban Driving
Albilani, M., & Bouzeghoub, A. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) · doi:10.1109/ictai59109.2023.00115 · Cited by 5
Mitta, R., Hasanbeig, H., Wang, J., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30137 · Cited by 4
Safeguarding Autonomous UAV Navigation: Agent Design using Evolving Behavior Trees
Potteiger, N., & Koutsoukos, X. (2024) · 2020 IEEE International Systems Conference (SysCon) · doi:10.1109/syscon61195.2024.10553469 · Cited by 4
Verification of Neural Network Control Systems in Continuous Time
ArjomandBigdeli, A., Mata, A., & Bak, S. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-65112-0_5 · Cited by 4
Safe Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning via Dynamic Shielding
Qiu, Y., Jin, Y., Yu, L., et al. (2024) · IEEE Conference on Artificial Intelligence (CAI) · doi:10.1109/cai59869.2024.00222 · Cited by 4
Tappler, M., Muškardin, E., Aichernig, B. K., & Könighofer, B. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Software Testing, Verification and Validation (ICST) · doi:10.1109/icst60714.2024.00026 · Cited by 4
Self-citationA Formal Approach for Safe Reinforcement Learning: A Rate-Adaptive Pacemaker Case Study
Vuppala, S. R. H., Allen, N. T., Pinisetty, S., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-74234-7_1 · Cited by 4
Shielding for Socially Appropriate Robot Listening Behaviors
Gillet, S., Marta, D., Akif, M., et al. (2024) · IEEE International Conference on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN) · doi:10.1109/ro-man60168.2024.10731356 · Cited by 4
Angelopoulos, G., Mangiacapra, L., Rossi, A., Napoli, C. D., & Rossi, S. (2025) · Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.engappai.2025.110520 · Cited by 4
Wen, M., & Topcu, U. (2021) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2021.3115080 · Cited by 4
Self-citationMinimum-Variance and Low-Complexity Data-Driven Probabilistic Safe Control Design
Modares, H. (2023) · IEEE Control Systems Letters · doi:10.1109/lcsys.2023.3247521 · Cited by 4
Inverse reinforcement learning through logic constraint inference
Baert, M., Leroux, S., & Simoens, P. (2023) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-023-06311-2 · Cited by 5
Monitors That Learn From Failures: Pairing STL and Genetic Programming
Brunello, A., Monica, D. D., Montanari, A., Saccomanno, N., & Urgolo, A. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3277620 · Cited by 4
Failure Handling in BDI Plans via Runtime Enforcement
Ferrando, A., & Cardoso, R. C. (2023) · Frontiers in artificial intelligence and applications · doi:10.3233/faia230336 · Cited by 4
Reducing Safety Interventions in Provably Safe Reinforcement Learning
Thumm, J., Pelat, G., & Althoff, M. (2023) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros55552.2023.10342464 · Cited by 5
Risk-Informed Model-Free Safe Control of Linear Parameter-Varying Systems
Esmaeili, B., & Modares, H. (2024) · IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica · doi:10.1109/jas.2024.124479 · Cited by 4
Symbolic Reinforcement Learning for Safe RAN Control
Nikou, A., Mujumdar, A. P., Orlić, M., et al. (2021) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/xkco9998 · Cited by 4
Belzner, L., & Wirsing, M. (2021) · Science of Computer Programming · doi:10.1016/j.scico.2021.102620 · Cited by 4
On Assessing The Safety of Reinforcement Learning algorithms Using Formal Methods
Mindom, P. S. N., Nikanjam, A., Khomh, F., & Mullins, J. (2021) · IEEE International Conference on Software Quality, Reliability and Security (QRS) · doi:10.1109/qrs54544.2021.00037 · Cited by 4
Transfer of Temporal Logic Formulas in Reinforcement LearningPreprint
Xu, Z., & Topcu, U. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1909.04256 · Cited by 4
Self-citationFormal Language Constraints for Markov Decision ProcessesPreprint
Quint, E., Xu, D., Flint, S., Scott, S., & Dwyer, M. B. (2019) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1910.01074 · Cited by 4
Robustness to Adversarial Attacks in Learning-Enabled ControllersPreprint
Xiong, Z., Eappen, J., Zhu, H., & Jagannathan, S. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2006.06861 · Cited by 5
Safe Reinforcement Learning for Antenna Tilt Optimisation using Shielding and Multiple Baselines.Preprint
Feghhi, S., Aumayr, E., Vannella, F., et al. (2020) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Verification in the Loop: Correct-by-Construction Control Learning with Reach-avoid GuaranteesPreprint
Wang, Y., Huang, C., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., & Zhu, Q. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2106.03245 · Cited by 5
Cai, M., & Vasile, C.-I. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 4
Zhang, X., Peng, Y., Luo, B., et al. (2021) · doi:10.36227/techrxiv.17205740.v2 · Cited by 4
Model-Free Learning of Safe yet Effective Controllers
Bozkurt, A. K., Wang, Y., & Pajić, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes · doi:10.1109/cdc45484.2021.9683634 · Cited by 3
Learning optimal safety certificates for unknown nonlinear control systems
Tooranjipour, P., & Kiumarsi, B. (2025) · IFAC Journal of Systems and Control · doi:10.1016/j.ifacsc.2025.100300 · Cited by 3
Kang, S. M., Zhao, H., Xie, H., et al. (2025) · Expert Systems with Applications · doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.128174 · Cited by 3
Shielded reinforcement learning for fault-tolerant scheduling in real-time systems
Shi, J., & Chen, K.-H. (2025) · Real-Time Systems · doi:10.1007/s11241-025-09441-z · Cited by 3
What Are the Odds? Improving Statistical Model Checking of Markov Decision Processes
Meggendorfer, T., Weininger, M., & Wienhöft, P. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-05792-1_11 · Cited by 3
Synthesizing Efficient and Permissive Programmatic Runtime Shields for Neural Policies
Shi, J., He, J., Yang, Z., Žikelić, Đ., & Lo, D. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology · doi:10.1145/3773034 · Cited by 6
Lan, X., Huang, Z., Wang, T., Zou, T., & Zhao, Z. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics · doi:10.1109/tce.2025.3643855 · Cited by 3
End-to-end Multi-Objective Deep Reinforcement Learning for Autonomous Navigation
Shen, Q., Xiang, G., Feng, S., et al. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Real-time Computing and Robotics (RCAR) · doi:10.1109/rcar58764.2023.10249369 · Cited by 3
Uniformly constrained reinforcement learning
Lee, J., Sedwards, S., & Czarnecki, K. (2023) · Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems · doi:10.1007/s10458-023-09607-8 · Cited by 3
Constrained Coverage of Unknown Environment Using Safe Reinforcement Learning
Zhang, Y., You, J., Shi, L., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Decision & Control, including the Symposium on Adaptive Processes · doi:10.1109/cdc49753.2023.10383702 · Cited by 3
Safe Q-Learning Approaches for Human-in-Loop Reinforcement Learning
Veerabathraswamy, S., & Bhatt, N. (2023) · Indian Control Conference · doi:10.1109/icc61519.2023.10442899 · Cited by 3
Offline Goal-Conditioned Reinforcement Learning for Safety-Critical Tasks with Recovery Policy
Cao, C., Yan, Z., Lu, R., et al. (2024) · Proceedings - IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation/Proceedings · doi:10.1109/icra57147.2024.10610856 · Cited by 3
Reusable Specification Patterns for Verification of Resilience in Autonomous Hybrid Systems
Adelt, J., Mensing, R., & Herber, P. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-71177-0_14 · Cited by 3
Safety-Driven Deep Reinforcement Learning Framework for Cobots: A Sim2Real Approach
Abbas, A. N., Mehak, S., Chasparis, G. C., et al. (2024) · International Conference on Control, Decision and Information Technologies (CoDIT) · doi:10.1109/codit62066.2024.10708345 · Cited by 3
ReDMan: reliable dexterous manipulation with safe reinforcement learning
Geng, Y., Ji, J., Chen, Y., Geng, H., Zhong, F., & Yang, Y. (2025) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1007/s10994-025-06825-x · Cited by 3
Case Study: Safety Controller for Autonomous Driving on Highways
Leuschel, M., Vu, F., & Rutenkolk, K. (2025) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-94533-5_12 · Cited by 3
Myopically Verifiable Probabilistic Certificates for Safe Control and Learning
Wang, Z. M., Jing, H., Kurniawan, C., et al. (2026) · IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control · doi:10.1109/tac.2026.3669443 · Cited by 3
Reaching Out Towards Fully Verified Autonomous Systems
Sankaranarayanan, S., Dutta, S., & Mover, S. (2019) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-30806-3_3 · Cited by 3
On Normative Reinforcement Learning via Safe Reinforcement Learning
Neufeld, E. A., Bartocci, E., & Ciabattoni, A. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-21203-1_5 · Cited by 3
Safety Guided Policy Optimization
Kim, D., Kim, Y., Lee, K., & Oh, S. (2022) · IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) · doi:10.1109/iros47612.2022.9981030 · Cited by 3
Kanashima, K., & Ushio, T. (2023) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3241946 · Cited by 3
Safety Shielding under Delayed Observation
Cano, F., Palmisano, A., Fränzle, M., et al. (2023) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · doi:10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27181 · Cited by 3
Self-citationLow, S. M., Kumar, A., & Sanner, S. (2023) · Proceedings of the International Conference on Automated Planning and Scheduling · doi:10.1609/icaps.v33i1.27241 · Cited by 4
Similarity-Based Shield Adaptation under Dynamic Environment
Senthilvelan, P., Li, J., & Tei, K. (2023) · IEEE International Conference on Software Engineering and Artificial Intelligence (SEAI) · doi:10.1109/seai59139.2023.10217461 · Cited by 3
Probabilistic Counterexample Guidance for Safer Reinforcement Learning
Ji, X., & Filieri, A. (2023) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-43835-6_22 · Cited by 3
Safe Reinforcement Learning for Signal Temporal Logic Tasks Using Robust Control Barrier Functions
Chen, J., Zou, Y., & Li, S. (2023) · Chinese Control Conference (CCC) · doi:10.23919/ccc58697.2023.10240080 · Cited by 3
Short video preloading via domain knowledge assisted deep reinforcement learning
Xie, Y., Zhang, Y., Lin, T., Pan, Z., Qian, S.-Z., Jiang, B., & Yan, J. (2024) · Digital Communications and Networks · doi:10.1016/j.dcan.2024.01.006 · Cited by 3
Safe Multi-Agent Reinforcement Learning for Price-Based Demand Response
Markgraf, H., & Althoff, M. (2023) · IEEE PES Innovative Smart Grid Technologies Europe · doi:10.1109/isgteurope56780.2023.10407281 · Cited by 3
Varricchione, G., Alechina, N., Dastani, M. M., Giacomo, G. D., Logan, B. S., & Perelli, G. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i19.30163 · Cited by 3
Legal Aspects for Software Developers Interested in Generative AI Applications
Herbold, S., Valerius, B., Mojica-Hanke, A. I., Lex, I., & Mittel, J. (2024) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2024.3476677 · Cited by 3
Efficient Shield Synthesis via State-Space Transformation
Brorholt, A. H., Høeg-Petersen, A. H., Larsen, K. G., et al. (2024) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75434-0_14 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Alshiekh, M., Bloem, R., Ehlers, R., Könighofer, B., Niekum, S., & Topcu, U.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Graz University of Technology (AT)
- University of Bremen (DE)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence
- Published
- 2018-04-29
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2159-5399 (ISSN-L)
- 2374-3468
- OpenAlex
- W2751422670
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 2.24
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (1652113, 1617639, 1646522)
- Austrian Science Fund (S11406-N23, W1255)
- Universität Bremen
- Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF-16-1-0001, FA8650-15C)
- Army Research Office (W911NF-15-1-0592, W911NF-15-1-, W911NF-16-1-, W911NF, W911NF-15)
- Air Force Research Laboratory (FA8650-15-C-2546, FA8650-15-, 8650-16-C-2610)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Formal Methods in Verification
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Logic, Reasoning, and Knowledge
- Keywords
- safe reinforcement learning, temporal logic specifications, reactive systems, convergence guarantees, policy learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-24, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-24 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
