mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Generalizing to New Domains by Mapping Natural Language to Lifted LTL

arXiv 2110.05603 ↗First posted 11 Oct 2021cs.CL cs.ROcited by 11

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Recent work on using natural language to specify commands to robots has grounded that language to LTL. However, mapping natural language task specifications to LTL task specifications using language models require probability distributions over finite vocabulary. Existing state-of-the-art methods have extended this finite vocabulary to include unseen terms from the input sequence to improve output generalization. However, novel out-of-vocabulary atomic propositions cannot be generated using these methods. To overcome this, we introduce an intermediate contextual query representation which can be learned from single positive task specification examples, associating a contextual query with an LTL template. We demonstrate that this intermediate representation allows for generalization over unseen object references, assuming accurate groundings are available. We compare our method of mapping natural language task specifications to intermediate contextual queries against state-of-the-art CopyNet models capable of translating natural language to LTL, by evaluating whether correct LTL for manipulation and navigation task specifications can be output, and show that our method outperforms the CopyNet model on unseen object references. We demonstrate that the grounded LTL our method outputs can be used for planning in a simulated OO-MDP environment. Finally, we discuss some common failure modes encountered when translating natural language task specifications to grounded LTL.

Key facts. Cited by 11 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 5 of its 16 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Oct 2021.

Builds on

5 of 16 references.

References · 5

  1. 2014Sequence to Sequence Learning with Neural Networkscited by 2,986
  2. 2016Incorporating Copying Mechanism in Sequence-to-Sequence Learningcited by 218
  3. 2014Probably Approximately Correct MDP Learning and Control With Temporal Logic Constraintscited by 54
  4. 2014A Learning Based Approach to Control Synthesis of Markov Decision Processes for Linear Temporal Logic Specificationscited by 49
  5. 2019Planning with State Abstractions for Non-Markovian Task Specificationscited by 8

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2023: 2; 2024: 5; 2025: 4.

11 papers.