Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: partial orders are a principle tool for modelling `` true concurrency '' semantics of concurrent systems ( cf . @xcite ) . they are utilized to develop powerful partial - order based automatic verification techniques , e.g. , _ partial order reduction _ for model checking concurrent software ( see , e.g. , ( * ? ? ? * chapter 10 ) and @xcite ) . partial orders are also equipped with _ traces _ , their powerful formal language counterpart , proposed by mazurkiewicz @xcite . in _ the book of traces _ @xcite , trace theory has been used to tackle problems from diverse areas including formal language theory , combinatorics , graph theory , algebra , logic , and _ concurrency theory_.    however , while partial orders and traces can sufficiently model the  earlier than " relationship , janicki and koutny argued that it is problematic to use a single partial order to specify both the  earlier than " and the  not later than " relationships @xcite . this motivates them to develop the theory of _ relational structures _ , where a pair of relations is used to capture concurrent behaviors . the most well - known among the classes of relational structures proposed by janicki and koutny is the class of _ stratified order structures _ ( _ so - structures _ ) @xcite . a so - structure is a triple @xmath0 , where @xmath1 and @xmath2 are binary relations on @xmath3 . they were invented to model both the  earlier than " ( the relation @xmath1 ) and  not later than " ( the relation @xmath2 ) relationships , under the assumption that system runs are described by _ stratified partial orders _ , i.e. , step sequences . they have been successfully applied to model inhibitor and priority systems , asynchronous races , synthesis problems , etc . ( see for example @xcite and others ) . _ com__bined _ trace _ ( _ comtrace _ ) notion , introduced by janicki and koutny @xcite , generalizes the trace notion by utilizing step sequences instead of words . first the set of all possible steps that generates step sequences are identified by a relation @xmath4 , which is called _ simultaneity_. second a congruence relation is determined by a relation @xmath5 , which is called _ serializability _ and in general _ not _ symmetric . then a comtrace is defined as a finite set of congruent step sequences . comtraces were introduced as a formal language representation of so - structures to provide an operational semantics for petri nets with inhibitor arcs . unfortunately , comtraces have been less often known and applied than so - structures , even though in many cases they appear to be more natural . we believe one reason is that the comtrace notion was too succinctly discussed in @xcite without a full treatment dedicated to comtrace theory . motivated by this , janicki and the author have devoted our recent effort on the study of comtraces @xcite , yet there are too many different aspects to explore and the truth is we can barely scratch the surface . in particular , the huge amount of results from trace theory ( e.g. , from @xcite ) desperately needs to be generalized to comtraces . these tasks are often non - trivial since we are required to develop intuition and novel techniques to deal with the complex interactions of the `` earlier than '' and `` not later than '' relations . this paper gives a novel characterization of comtraces using labeled so - structures . such definition is interesting for the following reasons . first , it defines exactly the class of labeled so - structures that can be represented by comtraces . it is worth noting that this point is particularly important . even though it was shown in @xcite that every comtrace can be represented by a labeled so - structure , the converse could not be shown because a class of labeled so - structures that defines precisely the class of comtraces was not known . the closest to our characterization is the _ combined dependency graph _ ( _ cd - graph _ ) notion ( analogous to _ dependence graph _ representation of traces ) introduced recently by kleijn and koutny @xcite , but again a theorem showing that combined dependency graphs can be represented by comtraces was not given . our approach is quite different and based on some new ideas discussed in section 4 of this paper . second , even though the step sequence definition of comtraces is more suitable when dealing with formal language aspects of comtraces , the labeled so - structure representation is more suitable for a variety of powerful order - theoretic results and techniques available to us ( cf . @xcite ) . finally , the labeled so - structure definition of comtrace can be easily extended to _ infinite comtraces _ , which describe nonterminating concurrent processes . the labeled poset representation of infinite traces is already successfully applied in both theory and practice , e.g. , @xcite . although such definition is equivalent to the one using quotient monoid over infinite words @xcite , we believe that infinite labeled posets are sometimes simpler . indeed the celebrated work by thiagarajan and walukiewicz ( cf . @xcite ) on linear temporal logic for traces utilizes the labeled poset characterization of infinite traces , where _ configurations _ of a trace are conveniently defined as _ finite downward closed subsets _ of the labeled poset representation . we will not analyze infinite comtraces or logics for comtraces in this paper , but these are fruitful directions to explore using the results from this paper . the paper is organized as follows . in section 2 , we recall some preliminary definitions and notations . in section 3 , we give a concise exposition of the theory of so - structures and comtraces by janicki and koutny @xcite . in section 4 , we give our definition of comtraces using labeled so - structure and some remarks on how we arrived at such definition . in section 5 , we prove a representation theorem showing that our comtrace definition and the one by janicki and koutny are indeed equivalent ; then using this theorem , we prove another representation theorem showing that our definition is also equivalent to the cd - graph definition from @xcite . in section 6 , we define _ composition _ operators for our comtrace representation and for cd - graphs . finally , in section 7 , some final remarks and future works are presented . the _ powerset _ of a set @xmath3 will be denoted by @xmath6 , i.e. @xmath7 . the set of all _ non - empty _ subsets of @xmath3 will be denoted by @xmath8 . in other words , we let @xmath10 denote the _ identity relation _ on a set @xmath3 . if @xmath11 and @xmath12 are binary relations on a set @xmath3 ( i.e. , @xmath13 ) , then their _ composition _ @xmath14 is defined as @xmath15 . we also define @xmath16 the relations @xmath17 and @xmath18 are called the _ ( irreflexive ) transitive closure _ and _ reflexive transitive closure _ of @xmath11 respectively . a binary relation @xmath19 is an _ equivalence relation _ relation on @xmath3 if and only if ( iff ) @xmath11 is _ reflexive _ , _ symmetric _ and _ transitive_. if @xmath11 is an equivalence relation , then for every @xmath20 , the set @xmath21_r { \triangleq}{\{y\;|\;y\;r\;x \wedge y\in x\}}$ ] is the equivalence class of @xmath22 with respect to @xmath11 . we also define @xmath23_r\mid x\in x\}}$ ] , i.e. , the set of all equivalence classes of @xmath3 under @xmath11 . we drop the subscript and write @xmath21 $ ] when @xmath11 is clear from the context . a binary relation @xmath24 is a _ partial order _ iff @xmath11 is _ irreflexive _ and _ transitive_. the pair @xmath25 in this case is called a _ partially ordered set _ ( _ poset _ ) . the pair @xmath25 is called a _ finite poset _ if @xmath3 is finite . for convenience , we define : @xmath26    a poset @xmath25 is _ total _ iff @xmath27 is empty ; and _ stratified _ iff @xmath28 is an equivalence relation . evidently every total order is stratified .      for every finite set @xmath3 , a set @xmath29 can be seen as an alphabet . the elements of @xmath30 are called _ steps _ and the elements of @xmath31 are called _ step sequences_. for example , if the set of possible steps is @xmath32 , then @xmath33 is a step sequence . the triple @xmath34 , where @xmath35 denotes the step sequence concatenation operator ( usually omitted ) and @xmath36 denotes the empty step sequence , is a monoid . let @xmath37 be a step sequence . we define @xmath38 , the number of occurrences of an event @xmath39 in @xmath40 , as @xmath41 , where @xmath42 denotes the cardinality of the set @xmath3 . then we can construct its unique _ enumerated step sequence _ @xmath43 as + @xmath44 + we will call such @xmath45 an _ event occurrence _ of @xmath46 . for instance , if we let @xmath47 , then @xmath48    we let @xmath49 denote the set of all event occurrences in all steps of @xmath50 . for example , when @xmath47 , @xmath51 we also define @xmath52 to be the function that returns the _ label _ of @xmath53 for each @xmath54 . for example , if @xmath55 , then @xmath56 . hence , from an enumerated step sequence @xmath57 , we can uniquely reconstruct its step sequence @xmath58    for each @xmath59 , we let @xmath60 denote the consecutive number of a step where @xmath53 belongs , i.e. , if @xmath61 then @xmath62 . for our example , @xmath63 , @xmath64 , etc . it is important to observe that step sequences and stratified orders are interchangeable concepts . given a step sequence @xmath65 , define the binary relation @xmath66 on @xmath67 as + @xmath68    intuitively , @xmath69 simply means @xmath53 occurs before @xmath70 on the step sequence @xmath65 . thus , @xmath71 iff @xmath72 ; and @xmath73 iff @xmath74 . obviously , the relation @xmath66 is a stratified order and we will call it the stratified order _ generated by the step sequence _ @xmath65 .    conversely , let @xmath75 be a stratified order on a set @xmath76 . the set @xmath76 can be represented as a sequence of equivalence classes @xmath77 ( @xmath78 ) such that @xmath79 the sequence @xmath80 is called the step sequence _ representing _ @xmath75 . a detailed discussion on this connection between stratified orders and step sequences can be found in @xcite . in this section , we review the janicki  koutny theory of stratified order structures and comtraces from @xcite . the reader is also referred to @xcite for an excellent introductory survey on the subject with many motivating examples . a _ relational structure _ is a triple @xmath81 , where @xmath3 is a set and @xmath82 , @xmath83 are binary relations on @xmath3 . a relational structure @xmath84 is an _ extension _ of @xmath85 , denoted as @xmath86 , iff @xmath87 , @xmath88 and @xmath89 .    a _ stratified order structure _ ( _ so - structure _ ) is a relational structure @xmath90 such that for all @xmath91 , the following hold : @xmath92 when @xmath3 is finite , @xmath12 is called a _ finite so - structure_. [ def : sos ]    the axioms  imply that @xmath93 is a partial order and @xmath94 the axioms and imply @xmath95 is a _ strict preorder_. the relation @xmath1 is called _ causality _ and represents the  earlier than " relationship while the relation @xmath2 is called _ weak causality _ and represents the  not later than " relationship . the axioms  model the mutual relationship between  earlier than " and  not later than " relations , provided that _ the system runs are stratified orders_. historically , the name `` stratified order structure '' came from the fact that stratified orders can be seen as a special kind of so - structures .    for every stratified poset @xmath96 , the triple @xmath97 is a so - structure.[prop : soss ]    we next recall the notion of _ stratified order extension_. this concept is extremely important since the relationship between stratified orders and so - structures is exactly analogous to the one between total orders and partial orders .    let @xmath98 be a so - structure . a _ stratified _ order @xmath75 on @xmath3 is a _ stratified extension _ of @xmath12 if and only if @xmath99 . the set of all stratified extensions of @xmath12 is denoted as @xmath100 . [ def : extsos ]    szpilrajn s theorem @xcite states that every poset can be reconstructed by taking the intersection of all of its total order extensions . janicki and koutny showed that a similar result holds for so - structures and stratified extensions :    let @xmath101 be a so - structure . then + @xmath102 [ theo : szpstrat ]    using this theorem , we can show the following properties relating so - structures and their stratified extensions . for every so - structure @xmath101 ,    1 . @xmath103 2 . @xmath104    [ cor : szpstrat ]    * 1 . * see ( * ? ? ? * theorem 3.6 ) . * 2 . * follows from * 1 . * and theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] . _ comtraces _ were introduced in @xcite as a generalization of traces to represent so - structures . the _ comtrace congruence _ is defined via two relations _ simultaneity _ and _ serializability_.    let @xmath105 be a finite set ( of events ) and let @xmath106 be two relations called _ serializability _ and _ simultaneity _ respectively and the relation @xmath4 is irreflexive and symmetric . the triple @xmath107 is called a _ comtrace alphabet_. [ def : comalpha ]    intuitively , if @xmath108 then @xmath39 and @xmath109 can occur simultaneously ( or be a part of a _ synchronous _ occurrence in the sense of @xcite ) , while @xmath110 means that @xmath39 and @xmath109 may occur simultaneously or @xmath39 may occur before @xmath109 . we define @xmath111 , the set of all possible _ steps _ , to be the set of all cliques of the graph @xmath112 , i.e. , + @xmath113    for a comtrace alphabet @xmath114 , we define @xmath115 to be the relation comprising all pairs @xmath116 of step sequences such that + @xmath117 + where @xmath118 and @xmath119 , @xmath120 , @xmath121 are steps satisfying @xmath122 and @xmath123 . we define _ comtrace congruence _ @xmath124 . we define the comtrace concatenation operator @xmath125 as @xmath126\circledast[t ] { \triangleq}[r\ast t]$ ] . the quotient monoid @xmath127)$ ] is called the monoid of _ comtraces _ over @xmath128 . [ def : commonoid ]    note that since @xmath5 is irreflexive , @xmath129 implies that @xmath130 . we will omit the subscript @xmath128 from the comtrace congruence @xmath131 , and write @xmath132 and @xmath133 when it causes no ambiguity . to shorten our notations , we often write @xmath134_{\theta}$ ] or @xmath134 $ ] instead of @xmath134_{{\equiv}_{\theta}}$ ] to denote the comtrace generated by the step sequence @xmath135 over @xmath128 . let @xmath136 where @xmath39 , @xmath109 and @xmath137 are three atomic operations , where + @xmath138 + assume simultaneous reading is allowed . then only @xmath109 and @xmath137 can be performed simultaneously , and the simultaneous execution of @xmath109 and @xmath137 gives the same outcome as executing @xmath109 followed by @xmath137 . we can then define the comtrace alphabet @xmath114 , where @xmath139 and @xmath140 . this yields @xmath141 . thus , @xmath142 = { \bigl\ { \{a\}\{b , c\},\{a\}\{b\}\{c\}\bigr\}}$ ] is a comtrace . but @xmath143 . [ ex : comtrace1 ]    even though traces are quotient monoids over sequences and comtraces are quotient monoids over step sequences , traces can be regarded as special kinds of comtraces when the relation @xmath144 . for a more detailed discussion on this connection between traces and comtraces , the reader is referred to @xcite . let @xmath145 . we define the relations @xmath146 as :    1 . @xmath147 2 .   @xmath148 . [ def : s2inv ]    it is worth noting that the structure @xmath149 is exactly the _ cd - graph _ ( cf . definition  [ def : comdag ] ) that represents the comtrace @xmath150 $ ] . this gives us some intuition on how koutny and kleijn constructed the cd - graph definition in @xcite . we also observe that @xmath151 is usually _ not _ a so - structure since @xmath152 and @xmath153 describe only basic `` local '' causality and weak causality invariants of the event occurrences of @xmath65 by considering pairwise serializable relationships of event occurrences . hence , @xmath152 and @xmath153 might not capture `` global '' invariants that can be inferred from  of definition  [ def : sos ] . to ensure all invariants are included , we need the following @xmath154-closure operator .    for every relational structure @xmath155 we define @xmath156 as + @xmath157 [ def : so - cl ]    intuitively @xmath154-closure is a generalization of transitive closure for relations to relational structures . the motivation is that for appropriate relations @xmath82 and @xmath83 ( see assertion ( 3 ) of proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] ) , the relational structure @xmath158 is a so - structure . the @xmath154-closure operator satisfies the following properties :    let @xmath155 be a relational structure .    1 . if @xmath83 is irreflexive then @xmath159 . 2 .   @xmath160 . @xmath156 is a so - structure if and only if @xmath161 is irreflexive . 4 .   if @xmath12 is a so - structure then @xmath162 . 5 . if @xmath12 be a so - structure and @xmath163 , then @xmath164 and @xmath165 is a so - structure . [ prop : so - cl ]    given a step sequence @xmath145 and its respective comtrace @xmath166\in { \mathbb{s}}_{\theta}^*/\!\equiv$ ] , we define the relational structures @xmath167 as : + @xmath168.[def : s2sos ]    the relational structure @xmath167 is called the _ so - structure defined by the comtrace _ @xmath166 $ ] , where @xmath169 , @xmath170 and @xmath171 are used to denote the event occurrence set , causality relation and weak causality relation induced by the comtrace @xmath172 respectively . the following nontrivial theorem and its corollary justifies the name by showing that step sequences in a comtrace @xmath172 are exactly stratified extension of the so - structure @xmath173 , and that @xmath167 is uniquely defined for the comtrace @xmath172 regardless of the choice of @xmath174 .    for each @xmath175 , the relational structure @xmath167 is a so - structure and @xmath176 . [ theo : com2sos ]    for all @xmath177 ,    1 . @xmath178 2 . @xmath179    [ cor : com2sos ] even though theorem  [ theo : com2sos ] shows that each comtrace can be represented uniquely by a labeled so - structure , it does not give us an explicit definition of how these labeled so - structures look like . in this section , we will give an exact definition of labeled so - structures that represent comtraces . to provide us with more intuition , we first recall how mazurkiewicz traces can be characterized as labeled posets . a _ trace concurrent alphabet _ is a pair @xmath180 , where @xmath181 is a symmetric irreflexive binary relation on the finite set @xmath105 . a _ trace congruence _ @xmath182 can then be defined as the smallest equivalence relation such that for all sequences @xmath183 , if @xmath184 , then @xmath185 . the elements of @xmath186 are called _ traces_.    traces can also be defined alternatively as posets whose elements are labeled with symbols of a concurrent alphabet @xmath180 satisfying certain conditions .    given a binary relation @xmath187 , the _ covering relation _ of @xmath11 is defined as @xmath188 . an alternative definition of mazurkiewicz trace is :    a trace over a concurrent alphabet @xmath180 is a finite labeled poset @xmath189 , where @xmath190 is a labeling function , such that for all @xmath191 ,    1 . @xmath192 , and 2 . @xmath193 . [ def : ltraces ]    a trace in this definition is only identified unique up to _ label - preserving isomorphism_. the first condition says that immediately causally related event occurrences must be labeled with dependent events . the second condition ensures that any two event occurrences with dependent labels must be causally related . the first condition is particularly important since two immediately causally related event occurrences will occur next to each other in at least one of its linear extensions . this is the key to relate definition  [ def : ltraces ] with quotient monoid definition of traces . thus , we would like to establish a similar relationship for comtraces . an immediate technical difficulty is that weak causality might be cyclic , so the notion of `` immediate weak causality '' does not make sense . however , we can still deal with cycles of a so - structure by taking advantage of the following simple fact : _ the weak causality relation is a strict preorder_.    let @xmath101 be a so - structure . we define the relation @xmath194 as + @xmath195    since @xmath95 is a strict preorder , it follows that @xmath196 is an equivalence relation . the relation @xmath196 will be called the _ @xmath95-cycle equivalence relation _ and an element of the quotient set @xmath197 will be called a _ @xmath95-cycle equivalence class_. we then define the following binary relations @xmath198 and @xmath199 on the quotient set @xmath197 as @xmath200 \widehat{{\prec } } [ \beta ] { \stackrel{\textit{\scriptsize{df}}}{\iff}\ } ( [ \alpha]\times[\beta])\;\cap { \prec}\not=\emptyset \hspace*{3mm}\text { and } \hspace*{3 mm } [ \alpha ] \widehat{{\sqsubset } } [ \beta ] { \stackrel{\textit{\scriptsize{df}}}{\iff}\ } ( [ \alpha]\times[\beta])\;\cap { \sqsubset}\not=\emptyset \label{qsos}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    using this quotient construction , every so - structure , whose weak causality relation might be cyclic , can be uniquely represented by an _ quotient so - structure . the relational structure @xmath201 is a so - structure , the relation @xmath199 is a partial order , and for all @xmath202 ,    1 . @xmath203 \widehat{{\prec } } [ \beta]$ ] 2 . @xmath204 \widehat{{\sqsubset } } [ \beta ] \vee ( \alpha\not=\beta \wedge [ \alpha]=[\beta])$ ]    follows from definition  [ def : sos ] .    using ( [ qsos ] ) and theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] , it is not hard to prove the following simple yet useful properties of @xmath95-cycle equivalence classes . let @xmath205 be a so - structure . we use @xmath65 and @xmath206 to denote some step sequences over @xmath8 . then for all @xmath191 ,    1 . @xmath207=[\beta ] \iff   \forall \lhd \in ext(s),\ ; \alpha \simeq_{\lhd } \beta$ ] 2 . @xmath208v$ ] 3 . @xmath207 { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\ ; } } [ \beta ] \implies \exists\lhd \in ext(s),\;\omega_{\lhd } = u[\alpha][\beta]v$ ]    [ prop : covlsos ]    each @xmath95-cycle equivalence class is what juhs , lorenz and mauser called a _ synchronous step _ they also used equivalence classes to capture synchronous steps but only for the special class of _ synchronous closed _ so - structures , where @xmath209 is an equivalence relation . we extend their ideas by using @xmath95-cycle equivalence classes to capture what we will call _ non - serializable sets _ in arbitrary so - structures . the name is justified in assertion ( 1 ) of proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] stating that two elements belong to the same non - serializable set of a so - structure @xmath12 iff they must be executed simultaneously in every stratified extension of @xmath12 . furthermore , we show in assertion ( 2 ) that all elements of a non - serializable set must occur together as a single step in at least one stratified extension of @xmath12 . assertion ( 3 ) gives a sufficient condition for two non - serializable sets to occur as consecutive steps in at least one stratified extension of @xmath12 . before we proceed to define comtrace using labeled so - structure , we need to define _ label - preserving isomorphisms _ for labeled so - structures more formally . a tuple @xmath210 is a _ labeled relational structure _ iff @xmath211 is a relational structure and @xmath212 is a function with domain @xmath3 . if @xmath211 is a so - structure , then @xmath85 is a _ labeled so - structure_.    given two labeled relational structures @xmath213 and @xmath214 , we write @xmath215 to denote that @xmath216 and @xmath217 are _ label - preserving isomorphic _ ( _ lp - isomorphic _ ) . in other words , there is a bijection @xmath218 such that for all @xmath219 ,    1 . @xmath220 2 . @xmath221 3 . @xmath222    such function @xmath223 is called a _ label - preserving isomorphism _ ( _ lp - isomorphism _ ) . note that all notations , definitions and results for so - structures are applicable to labeled so - structures . we also write @xmath224 $ ] or @xmath225 } $ ] to denote the lp - isomorphic class of a labeled relational structure @xmath226 . we will not distinguish an lp - isomorphic class @xmath227 } $ ] with a single labeled relational structure @xmath85 when it does not cause ambiguity . we are now ready to give an alternative definition for comtraces . to avoid confusion with the comtrace notion by janicki and koutny in @xcite , we will use the term _ lsos - comtrace _ to denote a comtrace defined using our definition .    given a comtrace alphabet @xmath114 , a _ lsos - comtrace _ over @xmath128 is ( an lp - isomorphic class of ) a finite labeled so - structure @xmath228 } $ ] such that @xmath190 and for all @xmath191 ,    1 . @xmath207 ( { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\cap \hat{{\prec } } ) [ \beta ] \implies \lambda([\alpha])\times \lambda([\beta ] ) \nsubseteq ser$ ] 2 . @xmath207 ( { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\setminus \hat{{\prec } } ) [ \beta ] \implies \lambda([\beta])\times \lambda([\alpha ] ) \nsubseteq ser$ ] 3 . @xmath229)},\ ; a\cup b = [ \alpha ] \implies \lambda(a)\times \lambda(b ) \not \subseteq ser$ ] 4 . @xmath230 5 . @xmath231    we write @xmath232 to denote the class of all lsos - comtraces over @xmath128 . [ def : lcomtrace ]    let @xmath136 , @xmath233 and @xmath234 . then we have @xmath235 . the lp - isomorphic class of the labeled so - structure @xmath236 depicted in figure  [ fig : f1 ] ( the dotted edges denote @xmath95 relation and the solid edges denote both @xmath93 and @xmath95 relations ) is a lsos - comtrace . the graph in figure  [ fig : f2 ] represents the labeled quotient so - structure @xmath237 of @xmath85 , where we define @xmath238 . @xmath239[f-]{a } \ar@{-->}[dr]\ar@/^/[rr ] \ar@/_1.5pc/ [ ddrr ] &      & * + [ o][f-]{c}\ar@/_/ @{-->}[dd]\\           & * + [ o][f-]{c } \ar[ur]\ar[dr ]        & \\ * + [ o][f-]{b } \ar[ur]\ar@/_/[rr]\ar@/^1.5pc/ [ uurr ]   &    & * + [ o][f-]{b}\ar@/_/ @{-->}[uu ] } $ ]    @xmath240{a } \ar@{-->}[dr]\ar@/^1pc/[drr ] &     & \\           & * + [ f-]{c } \ar[r ]       & * + [ f-]{b , c}\\ * + [ f-]{b } \ar[ur]\ar@/_1pc/[urr ]   & & } $ ]    the lsos - comtrace @xmath224 $ ] actually corresponds to the comtrace @xmath241 $ ] , and we will show this relationship formally in section  [ sec : representation ] . [ ex : comtrace2 ]    definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] can be extended to define _ infinite comtrace _ as follows . instead of asking @xmath3 to be finite , we require a labeled so - structure to be _ initially finite _ @xcite ) , i.e. , @xmath242 is finite for all @xmath243 . the initially - finiteness not only gives us a sensible interpretation that every event only causually depends on finitely many events , but also guarantees that the covering relations of @xmath244 and @xmath245 are well - defined . since each lsos - comtrace is defined as a class of lp - isomorphic labeled so - structures , dealing with lsos - comtrace might seem tricky . the _ no autoconcurrency _ property , i.e. , the relation @xmath5 is irreflexive , gives us a _ canonical _ way to enumerate the events of a lsos - comtrace very similar to how the events of a comtrace are enumerated .    given a step sequence @xmath246 and any function @xmath223 defined on @xmath247 , we define @xmath248 , i.e. , the step sequence derived from @xmath135 by applying the function @xmath223 successively on each @xmath249 . note that @xmath250 denotes the _ image _ of @xmath251 under @xmath223 . given a lsos - comtrace @xmath252 } $ ] over a comtrace alphabet @xmath114 , a stratified order @xmath253 can be seen as a step sequence @xmath254 .    1 . for every @xmath255 ( @xmath256 ) , @xmath257 2 . @xmath258 . [ prop : validss ]    proposition  [ prop : validss ] ensures that @xmath259 is a valid step sequence over @xmath128 . recall that @xmath260 denotes the enumerated step sequence of @xmath65 and @xmath261 denotes the set of event occurrences . bijection _ @xmath262 as + @xmath263    by proposition  [ prop : validss ] , the function @xmath264 is well - defined . moreover , we can show that @xmath264 is uniquely determined by @xmath85 regardless of the choice of @xmath253 .    given @xmath265 , let @xmath266 and @xmath267 . then @xmath268 . [ prop : uniquexi ]    henceforth , we will ignore subscripts and reserve the notation @xmath269 to denote the kind of mappings as defined above . we then define the _ enumerated so - structure _ of @xmath85 to be the labeled so - structure @xmath270 , where @xmath271 for @xmath259 and @xmath253 ; and the relations @xmath272 are defined as + @xmath273    clearly , the enumerated so - structure @xmath274 can be uniquely determined from @xmath85 using the preceding definition . from our construction , we can easily show the following important relationships :    1 . @xmath275 and @xmath85 are lp - isomorphic under the mapping @xmath269 . 2 .   the labeled so - structures @xmath276 and @xmath277 are lp - isomorphic under the mapping @xmath269 and @xmath278 . [ prop : isoext ]    in other words , the mapping @xmath279 plays the role of both the lp - isomorphism from @xmath275 to @xmath85 and the lp - isomorphism from the stratified extension @xmath280 of @xmath275 to the stratified extension @xmath96 of @xmath85 . these relationships can be best captured using the commutative diagram on the right . @xmath281_{\displaystyle \xi } \ar@{^{(}->}[d]_{\displaystyle id_{\sigma } }        & ( x,{\prec},{\sqsubset},\lambda ) \ar@{^{(}->}[d]^{\displaystyle id_{x } }     \\    ( \sigma,\lhd_{u},\lhd_{u}^{\frown},\ell ) \ar@{->}[r]^{\displaystyle \xi } &   ( x,\lhd,\lhd^{\frown},\lambda)}$ ]    we can even observe further that two lsos - comtraces are identical if and only if they define the same enumerated so - structure . henceforth , we will call an enumerated so - structure defined by a lsos - comtrace @xmath85 _ the canonical representation _ of @xmath85 . recently , inspired by the dependency graph notion for mazurkiewicz traces ( cf . * chapter 2 ) ) , kleijn and koutny claimed without proof that their _ combined dependency graph _ notion is another alternative way to define comtraces @xcite . in section  [ sec : representation ] , we will give a detailed proof of their claim . given an comtrace alphabet @xmath282 , a _ combined dependency graph _ ( _ cd - graph _ ) over @xmath128 is ( a lp - isomorphic class of ) a finite labeled relational structure @xmath283 } $ ] such that @xmath190 , the relations @xmath284 are irreflexive , @xmath285 is a so - structure , and for all @xmath286 ,    @xmath287    @xmath288    @xmath289    @xmath290 + we will write @xmath291 to denote the class of all cd - graphs over @xmath128 . [ def : comdag ]    cd - graphs can be seen as reduced graph - theoretic representations for lsos - comtraces , where some arcs that can be recovered using @xmath154-closure are omitted . it is interesting to observe that the non - serializable sets of a cd - graph are exactly the _ strongly connected components _ of the directed graph @xmath292 and can easily be found in time @xmath293 using any standard algorithm ( cf . * section 22.5 ) ) . +    cd - graphs were called _ dependence comdags _ in @xcite . but this name could be misleading since the directed graph @xmath292 is not necessarily acyclic . for example , the graph on the right is the cd - graph that corresponds to the lsos - comtrace from figure  [ fig : f1 ] , but it is not acyclic . ( here , we use the dotted edges to denote @xmath294 and the solid edges to denote _ only _ @xmath295 . ) thus , we use the name `` combined dependency graph '' instead . @xmath296[f-]{a } \ar@{-->}[dr ] \ar@/_1.5pc/ [ ddrr ] &     & * + [ o][f-]{c}\ar@/_/ @{-->}[dd]\\           & * + [ o][f-]{c } \ar[ur]\ar[dr ]        & \\ * + [ o][f-]{b } \ar[ur]\ar@/_/[rr]\ar@/^1.5pc/ [ uurr ]   &    & * + [ o][f-]{b}\ar@/_/ @{-->}[uu ] } $ ] this section contains the main technical contribution of this paper by showing that for a given comtrace alphabet @xmath128 , @xmath297 , @xmath232 and @xmath291 are three equivalent ways of talking about the same class of objects . we will next prove the first representation theorem which establishes the representation mappings between @xmath297 and @xmath232 . let @xmath298 and @xmath299 be stratified order structures such that @xmath300 . then @xmath301 . [ prop : stratsubset ]    follows from theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] .    for the next two lemmata , we let @xmath85 be a lsos - comtrace over a comtrace alphabet @xmath114 . let @xmath302 be the canonical representation of @xmath85 . let @xmath303 and @xmath304 . since @xmath65 is a valid step sequence in @xmath31 ( by proposition  [ prop : validss ] ) , we can construct @xmath305 } = ( \sigma_{u},{\prec}_{[u]},{\sqsubset}_{[u]})$ ] from definition  [ def : s2sos ] . our goal is to show that the stratified order @xmath305}$ ] defined by the comtrace @xmath150 $ ] is exactly @xmath306 . @xmath305 } \subseteq ( \sigma_{u},{\prec}_{0},{\sqsubset}_{0})$ ] . [ lem : l1 ]    by proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] , to show @xmath305 } = ( \sigma_{u},{\prec}_{u},{\sqsubset}_{u})^{\lozenge } \subseteq ( \sigma_{u},{\prec}_{0},{\sqsubset}_{0})$ ] , it suffices to show that @xmath307 . since @xmath274 is the canonical representation of @xmath85 , it is important to observe that @xmath308 . ( @xmath309 ) : assume @xmath310 . then from definition  [ def : s2inv ] , @xmath311 . since @xmath312 , it follows from definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] that @xmath313 or @xmath314 . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath314 , then by theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] , @xmath315 . but since we assume that @xmath303 , it follows that @xmath316 and @xmath317 , a contradiction . hence , we have shown @xmath313 . ( @xmath318 ) : can be shown in a similar way .    @xmath305 } \supseteq ( \sigma_{u},{\prec}_{0},{\sqsubset}_{0})$ ] . [ lem : l2 ]    in this proof , we will include subscripts for equivalence classes to avoid confusing the elements from quotient set @xmath319 with the elements from the quotient comtrace monoid @xmath320 . in other words , we write @xmath207_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] to denote an element of the quotient set @xmath319 , and write @xmath150_{\theta}$ ] to denote the comtrace generated by @xmath65 . let @xmath321 . to show @xmath305 } \supseteq s'$ ] , by proposition  [ prop : stratsubset ] , it suffices to show @xmath322 } ) \subseteq ext(s')$ ] . from theorem  [ theo : com2sos ] , we know that @xmath322_{\theta } } ) = { \{\lhd_w\mid w\in [ u]_{\theta}\}}$ ] . thus we only need to show that for all @xmath323_{\theta}$ ] , @xmath324 . we observe that from @xmath65 , by definition  [ def : commonoid ] , we can generate all the step sequences in the comtrace @xmath150_{\theta}$ ] in stages using the following recursive definition : @xmath325    since the set @xmath150_{\theta}$ ] is finite , @xmath150_{\theta}=d^n(u)$ ] for some stage @xmath326 . for the rest of the proof , we will prove by induction on @xmath327 that for all @xmath328 , if @xmath329 then @xmath330 . + * base case : * when @xmath331 , @xmath332 . since @xmath333 , it follows from proposition  [ prop : isoext ] that @xmath334 . + * inductive case : * when @xmath335 , let @xmath40 be an element of @xmath336 . then either @xmath337 or @xmath338 . for the former case , by inductive hypothesis , @xmath339 . for the latter case , there must be some element @xmath340 such that @xmath341 or @xmath342 . by induction hypothesis , we already known @xmath343 . we want to show that @xmath324 . there are two cases to consider : + _ * case ( i ) : * _ + when @xmath341 , by definition  [ def : commonoid ] , there are some @xmath344 and steps @xmath345 such that @xmath346 and @xmath347 where @xmath119 , @xmath120 , @xmath121 satisfy @xmath348 and @xmath349 and @xmath129 . let @xmath350 and @xmath351 be enumerated step sequences of @xmath206 and @xmath40 respectively . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath352 . by definition  [ def : extsos ] , there are @xmath353 and @xmath354 such that @xmath355 . we now consider the quotient set @xmath356 . by proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ( 1 ) , @xmath357 . since @xmath355 , it follows that @xmath207_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0 } [ \beta]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] . thus , from the fact that @xmath358 is partial order , there must exists a chain @xmath200_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}=\ ; [ \gamma_1]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } \;{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\ ; [ \gamma_2]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\;{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\ ; \ldots\;{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\;[\gamma_k]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\;= [ \beta]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } }   \label{eq : chain1}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    then by theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] and the fact that @xmath343 , we know that @xmath359 for all @xmath255 . in other words , since the chain implies that every @xmath360 must always occur between @xmath53 and @xmath70 in all stratified extensions of @xmath361 and @xmath362 , we also have @xmath359 . hence , by proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ( 1 ) , we have @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{a}}$ ] for all @xmath255 , @xmath256 . also from of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] and that @xmath364 , we know that for each @xmath360 , either @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{b}}$ ] or @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{c}}$ ] . now we note that the first element on the chain @xmath365_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}=[\alpha]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{c}}$ ] and the last element on the chain @xmath366_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}=[\beta]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{b}}$ ] . thus , there exist two consecutive elements @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] and @xmath367_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] on the chain such that @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{c}}$ ] and @xmath367_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{b}}$ ] . but then it follows that    * @xmath367_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\times [ \gamma_i]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq ser$ ] and @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\ ; } } [ \gamma_{i+1}]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] * @xmath368_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } \hat{{\prec}}_{0 } [ \gamma_{i+1}]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\bigr)$ ] since @xmath343 and @xmath369    these contradict of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] since @xmath274 is a lsos - comtrace . + _ * case ( ii ) : * _ + when @xmath342 , by definition  [ def : commonoid ] , there are some @xmath344 and steps @xmath345 such that @xmath370 and @xmath371 where @xmath119 , @xmath120 , @xmath121 satisfy @xmath348 and @xmath349 and @xmath129 . let @xmath372 and @xmath373 be enumerated step sequences of @xmath206 and @xmath40 respectively . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath352 . by definition  [ def : extsos ] , there are @xmath374 and @xmath375 such that @xmath313 . by proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ( 1 ) , @xmath357 . thus , using a dual argument to the proof of case ( i ) , we can build a chain @xmath200_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}=\ ; [ \gamma_1]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } \;{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\ ; [ \gamma_2]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\;{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\ ; \ldots\;{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\;[\gamma_k]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\;= [ \beta]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } \end{aligned}\ ] ] we then argue that there are two consecutive elements on the chain such that @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{b}}$ ] and @xmath367_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq { \overline{c}}$ ] , which implies    1 . @xmath376_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\times [ \gamma_{i+1}]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}\subseteq ser$ ] and @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}_{0}}^{\mathsf{cov}\ ; } } [ \gamma_{i+1}]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] 2 . @xmath363_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0 } } } \hat{{\prec}}_{0 } [ \gamma_{i+1}]_{\equiv_{{\sqsubset}_{0}}}$ ] since @xmath343 and @xmath377    these contradict of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] . we also need to show that the labeled so - structure defined from each comtrace is indeed a lsos - comtrace . in other words , we need to show the following lemma . let @xmath114 be a comtrace alphabet . given a step sequence @xmath378 , the lp - isomorphic class @xmath379},{\prec}_{[u]},{\sqsubset}_{[u]},\ell \right ] } $ ] is a lsos - comtrace over @xmath128 . [ lem : l3 ]    the proof of this lemma is straightforward by checking that @xmath379},{\prec}_{[u]},{\sqsubset}_{[u]},\ell \right ] } $ ] satisfies all conditions . let @xmath128 be a comtrace alphabet .    1 . the mapping @xmath380 is defined as + @xmath381 } , $ ] + where the function @xmath382 is defined in section  [ sec : steps ] and @xmath383 is the so - structure defined by the comtrace @xmath172 from definition  [ def : s2sos ] . the mapping @xmath384 is defined as + @xmath385    [ def : repmaps ]    intuitively , the mapping @xmath386 is used to convert a comtrace to lsos - comtrace while the mapping @xmath387 is used to transform a lsos - comtrace into a comtrace . the fact that @xmath386 and @xmath387 are valid representation mappings for @xmath388 and @xmath232 will be shown in the following theorem . let @xmath128 be a comtrace alphabet .    1 .   for every @xmath389 , @xmath390 . 2 .   for every @xmath391 , @xmath392 . [ theo : rep ]    * 1 . * the fact that @xmath393 follows from lemma  [ lem : l3 ] . now for a given @xmath389 , we have @xmath394 . thus , it follows that @xmath395    * 2 . * assume @xmath270 is the canonical representation of @xmath85 . observe that since @xmath396 , we have @xmath397    let @xmath398 . we will next show that @xmath399 and @xmath400 } $ ] . fix an arbitrary @xmath401 , from lemmas [ lem : l1 ] and [ lem : l2 ] , @xmath305 } = ( \sigma,{\prec}_{0},{\sqsubset}_{0})$ ] . from theorem  [ theo : com2sos ] , @xmath402})\bigr\ } } = [ u]$ ] . and the rest follows . the theorem says that the mappings @xmath386 and @xmath387 are inverses of each other and hence are both _ bijective_.      using theorem  [ theo : rep ] , we are going to show that the _ combined dependency graph _ notion proposed in @xcite is another correct alternative definition for comtraces . first we need to define several representation mappings that are needed for our proofs . let @xmath128 be a comtrace alphabet .    1 . the mapping @xmath403 is defined as + @xmath404 + where @xmath65 is any step sequence in @xmath172 and @xmath405 and @xmath406 are defined as in definition  [ def : s2inv ] . the mapping @xmath407 is defined as @xmath408 . the mapping @xmath409 is defined as + @xmath410 . [ def : drepmaps ]    before proceeding futher , we want to make sure that :    1 . @xmath407 is a well - defined function . 2 . @xmath403 is a well - defined function . given a cd - graph @xmath411 } \in { \mathsf{cdg}}(\theta)$ ] , let @xmath412 } = d_1^{\lozenge}$ ] . we know that @xmath85 is uniquely defined , since by definition  [ def : comdag ] , @xmath413 is a so - structure , and so - structures are fixed points of @xmath154-closure ( by proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] ( 4 ) ) . we will next show that @xmath85 is a lsos - comtrace by verifying the conditions  of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] . conditions and are exactly and . : suppose for contradiction that there exist two distinct non - serializable sets @xmath207,[\beta]\subset x$ ] such that @xmath207({{\hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\cap \hat{{\prec}})[\beta]$ ] and @xmath414)\times \lambda([\beta ] ) \subseteq ser$ ] . clearly , this implies that @xmath415 , and thus by the @xmath154-closure definition , @xmath70 is reachable from @xmath53 on the directed graph @xmath416 , where @xmath417 . now we consider a shortest path @xmath418 + @xmath419 + on @xmath420 that connects @xmath53 to @xmath70 . we will prove by induction on @xmath421 that there exist two consecutive @xmath422 and @xmath423 on @xmath418 such that @xmath424 $ ] and @xmath425 $ ] and @xmath426 , which contradicts with @xmath414)\times \lambda([\beta ] ) \subseteq ser$ ] . + * base case : * when @xmath427 , then @xmath428 . since @xmath207({{\hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\cap \hat{{\prec}})[\beta]$ ] , we have @xmath429 , which by implies @xmath430 . + * inductive case : * when @xmath431 , we consider @xmath432 and @xmath433 . if @xmath434 $ ] and @xmath435 $ ] , then by @xmath207({{\hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\cap \hat{{\prec}})[\beta]$ ] , we have @xmath436 , which immediately yields @xmath437 . otherwise , we have @xmath438\cup [ \beta]$ ] or @xmath439 $ ] . for the first case , we get @xmath207\hat{{\sqsubset}}[\delta_2]\hat{{\sqsubset}}[\beta]$ ] , which contradicts that @xmath207{{\hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}[\beta]$ ] . for the latter case , we can apply induction hypothesis on the path @xmath440 .    and can also be shown similarly using `` shortest path '' argument as above . these proofs are easier since we only need to consider paths with edges in @xmath294 . * 2 . * by the proof of ( * lemma 4.7 ) , for any two step sequences @xmath50 and @xmath65 in @xmath441 , we have @xmath442 iff @xmath443 ) = { \mathsf{ct2dep}}([t])$ ] . thus the mapping @xmath444 is well - defined . the mapping @xmath407 is injective . [ lem : dlinj ]    assume that @xmath445 , such that @xmath446 $ ] . since @xmath154-closure operator does not change the labeling function , we can assume that @xmath447 $ ] and @xmath448 . we will next show that @xmath449 . ( @xmath450 ) : let @xmath286 such that @xmath451 . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath452 . since @xmath451 , by , @xmath453 . thus , by , @xmath454 . but since @xmath448 , it follows that @xmath455 ( by proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] ) . thus , @xmath456 and @xmath457 , a contradiction . ( @xmath458 ) : can be proved similarly .    by reversing the role of @xmath459 and @xmath460 , we have @xmath461 . thus , we conclude @xmath462 . we are now ready to show the following representation theorem which ensures that @xmath463 and @xmath464 are valid representation mappings for @xmath232 and @xmath291 . let @xmath128 be a comtrace alphabet .    1 .   for every @xmath465 , @xmath466 . 2 .   for every @xmath391 , @xmath467 . [ theo : deprep ]    * 1 . * let @xmath468 and let @xmath469 . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath470 and @xmath471 . from how @xmath386 is defined , @xmath472 . thus , it follows that @xmath473 . but this contradicts the injectivity of @xmath464 from lemma  [ lem : dlinj ] . let @xmath391 and let @xmath474 . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath475 and @xmath476 . since @xmath477 , if we let @xmath478 , then @xmath479 . thus , we have shown that @xmath480 and @xmath481 , contradicting theorem  [ theo : rep ] ( 2 ) . this theorem shows that lsos - comtraces and cd - graphs are equivalent representations for comtraces . the main advantage of cd - graph definition is its simplicity while the lsos - comtrace definition is stronger and more convenient to prove properties about labeled so - structures that represent comtraces . we do not need to prove another representation theorem for cd - graphs and comtraces since their representation mappings are simply the composition of the representation mappings from theorems [ theo : rep ] and [ theo : deprep ] . recall for a comtrace monoid @xmath127)$ ] , the comtrace operator @xmath125 is defined as @xmath126\circledast[t ] = [ r\ast t]$ ] . we will construct analogous composition operators for lsos - comtraces and cd - graphs . we will then show that lsos - comtraces ( cd - graphs ) over a comtrace alphabet @xmath128 together with its composition operator form a monoid isomorphic to the comtrace monoid @xmath127)$ ] . given two sets @xmath482 and @xmath483 , we write @xmath484 to denote the _ disjoint union _ of @xmath482 and @xmath483 . such disjoint union can be easily obtained by renaming the elements in @xmath482 and @xmath483 so that @xmath485 . we define the lsos - comtrace composition operator as follows . let @xmath486 and @xmath487 be lsos - comtraces over an alphabet @xmath114 , where @xmath488 } $ ] . the _ composition _ @xmath489 of @xmath486 and @xmath487 is defined as ( a lp - isomorphic class of ) a labeled so - structure @xmath490 } $ ] such that @xmath491 , @xmath492 , and @xmath493 , where + @xmath494 + @xmath495    observe that the operator is well - defined since we can easily check that :    for every @xmath496 , @xmath497 . we will next show that this composition operator @xmath498 properly corresponds to the operator @xmath125 of the comtrace monoid over @xmath128 . let @xmath128 be a comtrace alphabet . then    1 .   for every @xmath499 , @xmath500 2 .   for every @xmath501 , @xmath502    [ prop : hom1 ]    * 1 . * assume @xmath503 } $ ] , @xmath504 } $ ] and @xmath505 } $ ] . we can pick @xmath506 and @xmath507 . then observe that a stratified order @xmath75 satisfying @xmath508 is an extension of @xmath509 . thus , by theorem  [ theo : rep ] , we have @xmath510\circledast [ { \mathsf{map}}(\lambda_2,\lhd_2 ) ] =   [ { \mathsf{map}}(\lambda,\lhd ) ] = { \mathsf{lct2ct}}(q)$ ] as desired . * 2 . * without loss of generality , we can assume that @xmath511 $ ] , @xmath512 $ ] and @xmath513 = \mathbf{r}\circledast \mathbf{t}$ ] , where @xmath514 . by appropriate reindexing , we can also assume that @xmath515 . under these assumptions , let @xmath516 } $ ] , @xmath517 } $ ] and @xmath518 } $ ] , where @xmath519 is simply the standard labeling functions . it will now suffice to show that @xmath520 . ( @xmath521 ) : let @xmath522 . by definitions [ def : s2inv ] and [ def : s2sos ] , we have + @xmath523 + @xmath524 + thus , by proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] ( 5 ) , we have @xmath525 as desired . furthermore , by proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] ( 5 ) , @xmath526 is a so - structure . ( @xmath527 ) : by definitions [ def : s2inv ] and [ def : s2sos ] , we have @xmath528 and @xmath529 . since we already know @xmath526 is a so - structure , it follows from proposition  [ prop : so - cl ] ( 5 ) that + @xmath530    let @xmath531 denote the lp - isomorphic class @xmath532 $ ] . then we observe that @xmath533 ) = \mathbb{i}$ ] and @xmath534 $ ] . by proposition  [ prop : hom1 ] and theorem  [ theo : rep ] , the structure @xmath535 is isomorphic to the monoid @xmath536)$ ] under the isomorphisms @xmath380 and @xmath384 . thus , the triple @xmath537 is also a monoid . we can summarize these facts in the following theorem :    the mappings @xmath386 and @xmath387 are monoid isomorphisms between two monoids @xmath536)$ ] and @xmath535 . similarly , we can also define a composition operator for cd - graphs . let @xmath538 and @xmath539 be cd - graphs over an alphabet @xmath114 , where @xmath540 } $ ] . the _ composition _ @xmath541 of @xmath538 and @xmath539 is defined as ( a lp - isomorphic class of ) a labeled so - structure @xmath542 } $ ] such that @xmath491 , @xmath492 , and + @xmath543 + @xmath544    from this definition , it is straightforward to show the following propositions , which we will state without proofs .    for every @xmath545 , @xmath546 . let @xmath128 be a comtrace alphabet . then    1 .   for every @xmath499 , @xmath547 2 .   for every @xmath548 , @xmath549    [ prop : hom2 ]    putting the two preceding propositions and theorem  [ theo : deprep ] together , we conclude :    the mappings @xmath463 and @xmath464 are monoid isomorphisms between two monoids @xmath535 and @xmath550 . the simple yet useful construction we used extensively in this paper is to build a quotient so - structure modulo the @xmath95-cycle equivalence relation . intuitively , each @xmath95-cycle equivalence class consists of all the events that must be executed simultaneously with one another and hence can be seen as a single `` composite event '' . the resulting quotient so - structure is technically easier to handle since both relations of the quotient so - structure are acyclic . from this construction , we were able to give a labeled so - structure definition for comtraces similar to the labeled poset definition for traces . this quotient construction also explicitly reveals the following connection : a step on a step sequence @xmath135 is not serializable with respect to the relation @xmath5 of a comtrace alphabet if and only if it corresponds to a @xmath95-cycle equivalence class of the lsos - comtrace representing the comtrace @xmath134 $ ] ( cf . proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ) . we have also formally shown that the quotient monoid of comtraces , the monoid of lsos - comtraces and the monoid of cd - graphs _ over the same comtrace alphabet _ are indeed isomorphic by establishing monoid isomorphisms between them . these three models are formal linguistic , order - theoretic , and graph - theoretic respectively , which allows us to apply a variety of tools and techniques . an immediate future task is to develop a framework similar to the one in this paper for _ generalized comtraces _ , proposed and developed in @xcite . generalized comtraces extend comtraces with the ability to model events that can be executed _ earlier than or later than but never simultaneously_. another direction is to define and analyze infinite comtraces ( and generalized comtraces ) in a spirit similar to the works on infinite traces , e.g. , @xcite . it is also promising to use infinite lsos - comtraces and cd - graphs to develop logics for comtraces similarly to what have been done for traces ( cf . @xcite ) . i am grateful to prof . ryszard janicki for introducing me comtrace theory . i also thank the mathematics institute of warsaw university and the theoretical computer science group of jagiellonian university for their supports during my visits . it was during these visits that the ideas from this paper emerge . this work is financially supported by the ontario graduate scholarship and the natural sciences and engineering research council of canada . the anonymous referees are thanked for their valuable comments that help improving the readability of this paper . 19 e. clarke , o. grumberg and d. peled , _ model checking _ , mit press , cambridge , 1999 . t. h. cormen , c. e. leiserson and r. l. rivest , _ introduction to algorithms _ , second edition , mit press , 2001 . b. a. davey and h. a. priestley , , cambridge university press 2002 . v. diekert , on the concatenation of infinite traces , proc . of stacs , _ lncs _ 480 ( 1991 ) , 105117 . v. diekert and g. rozenberg ( eds . ) , . world scientific 1995 . v. diekert and y mtivier , , _ handbook of formal languages , vol . 3 : beyond words _ , pp 457 - 533 , springer 1997 . v. diekert , m. horsch , m. kufleitner , on first - order fragments for mazurkiewicz traces , _ fundam . _ 80(1 - 3 ) : 1 - 29 , 2007 . j. esparza and k. heljanko , _ unfoldings  a partial - order approach to model checking _ , springer 2008 . a. farzan and p. madhusudan , causal dataflow analysis for concurrent programs , proc . of cav , _ lncs _ 4144 ( 2006 ) : 315328 . a. farzan and p. madhusudan , causal atomicity , proc . of tacas 2007 , _ lncs _ 4424 ( 2007 ) , 102116 . p. c. fishburn , _ interval orders and interval graphs _ , j. wiley 1985 , new york . h. gaifman and v. pratt , partial order models of concurrency and the computation of function , _ proc . of lics87 _ , pp . 7285 . p. gastin , infinite traces , proc . of semantics of systems of concurrent processes , _ lncs _ 469 ( 1990 ) , 277308 . t. gazagnaire , b. genest , l. hlout , p. s. thiagarajan , s. yang , causal message sequence charts , _ theor . 410(41 ) : 40944110 , 2009 . r. janicki , relational structures model of concurrency . , 45(4 ) : 279320 , 2008 . r. janicki and m. koutny , invariants and paradigms of concurrency theory , proc . of _ parle _ 91 , _ lncs _ 506 , springer 1991 , pp . 5974 . r. janicki and m. koutny , structure of concurrency , , 112(1 ) : 552 , 1993 . r. janicki and m. koutny , semantics of inhibitor nets , _ information and computation _ , 123(1 ) : 116 , 1995 . r. janicki and m. koutny , fundamentals of modelling concurrency using discrete relational structures , _ acta informatica _ , 34 : 367388 , 1997 . r. janicki and m. koutny , on causality semantics of nets with priorities , _ fundamenta informaticae _ 34 : 222255 , 1999 . r. janicki and d. t. m. l , modelling concurrency with quotient monoids , proc of petri nets 2008 , _ lncs _ 5062 , springer 2008 , pp . 251269 . r. janicki and d. t. m. l , modelling concurrency with comtraces and generalized comtraces , submitted in 2009 . available at : http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.1722    g. juhs , r. lorenz , s. mauser , causal semantics of algebraic petri nets distinguishing concurrency and synchronicity , _ fundamenta informatica _ 86(3 ) : 255 - 298 , 2008 . g. juhs , r. lorenz , s. mauser , synchronous + concurrent + sequential = earlier than + not later than , proc . of acsd06 , turku , finland 2006 , pp . 261 - 272 , ieee press . h. c. m. kleijn and m. koutny , process semantics of general inhibitor nets , _ information and computation _ , 190:1869 , 2004 . j. kleijn and m. koutny , formal languages and concurrent behaviour , _ studies in computational intelligence _ , 113:125 - 182 , 2008 . d. t. m. l , studies in comtrace monoids , master thesis , dept . of computing and software , mcmaster university , canada , august 2008 . a.  mazurkiewicz , concurrent program schemes and their interpretation , tr daimi pb-78 , comp . science depart . , aarhus university , 1977 . v. pratt , modeling concurrency with partial orders , _ international journal of parallel programming _ , 15(1):3371 , 1986 . e.  szpilrajn , sur lextension de lordre partiel , _ fund . mathematicae _ 16 , 386389 , 1930 . p. s. thiagarajan and i. walukiewicz , an expressively complete linear time temporal logic for mazurkiewicz traces , _ inf . comput . _ 179(2 ) : 230249 , 2002 . * 1 . * ( @xmath551 ) : since @xmath207=[\beta]$ ] , we know that @xmath552 or @xmath553 . the former case is trivial . for the latter case , by theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] , we have @xmath554 and @xmath555 . but this implies that @xmath556 . ( @xmath557 ) : the case when @xmath552 is trivial . assume that @xmath558 and @xmath556 . thus , by theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] , @xmath559 and @xmath457 . but this means @xmath53 and @xmath70 belong to the same equivalence class . * suppose for a contradiction that all @xmath560 can not be written in the form of @xmath561v$ ] . this implies that there exists some @xmath562 $ ] such that for all @xmath560 , @xmath563 . but by theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] , this yields @xmath564 and @xmath565 , contradicting with @xmath566 $ ] . assume @xmath207 { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\ ; } } [ \beta]$ ] . suppose for a contradiction that there does not exist @xmath560 such that @xmath561[\beta]v$ ] for some step sequences @xmath65 and @xmath206 . then , by theorem  [ theo : szpstrat ] , there must exist some @xmath567\cup[\beta])$ ] , such that @xmath568 . since @xmath569\cup[\beta]$ ] , this yields @xmath207{\sqsubset}[\gamma ] { \sqsubset}[\beta]$ ] , which contradicts that @xmath207 { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\ ; } } [ \beta]$ ] . assume @xmath570 and @xmath558 . thus , @xmath571 . thus , by corollary  [ cor : szpstrat ] ( 2 ) , we have @xmath572 . hence , by of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] , @xmath573 . since @xmath4 is irreflexive , this also shows that any two distinct @xmath53 and @xmath70 in @xmath251 have different labels . thus , @xmath257 for all @xmath255 . * 2 . * from the proof of * 1 . * , we know that @xmath570 and @xmath558 implies @xmath573 . thus , @xmath574 for all @xmath255 . observe that from proposition  [ prop : validss ] , we have @xmath575 . it remains to show that @xmath576 for all @xmath577 . suppose for a contradiction that @xmath578 for some @xmath577 . from the definition above , there are two distinct elements @xmath202 , such that @xmath579 and @xmath580 and @xmath581 . since @xmath5 is irreflexive , @xmath582 . thus , by of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] , @xmath583 or @xmath584 . without loss of generality , we assume @xmath583 and that @xmath585 for some event @xmath586 .    again by of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] , we know that elements having the same label are totally ordered by @xmath93 . thus , if @xmath587 is the number of elements in @xmath3 labeled by @xmath39 , then we have @xmath588 and @xmath589 . but then @xmath590 implies that @xmath591 , while @xmath592 implies that @xmath593 , which is absurd . let @xmath594},{\prec}_{[u]},{\sqsubset}_{[u]},l \bigr)$ ] . from theorem  [ theo : com2sos ] , @xmath85 is a labeled so - structure . it only remains to show that @xmath85 satisfies conditions  of definition  [ def : lcomtrace ] . : assume @xmath207 ( { { \hat{{\sqsubset}}}^{\mathsf{cov}\;}}\cap \hat{{\prec } } ) [ \beta]$ ] and suppose for a contradiction that @xmath414)\times \lambda([\beta ] ) \subseteq ser$ ] . then from proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ( 3 ) , there exists @xmath595 such that @xmath596[\beta]w$ ] . from theorem  [ theo : com2sos ] , since we have @xmath597\bigr\ } } = ext(s_{[u]})$ ] , it follows that @xmath598[\beta]w ) \in [ u]$ ] . but @xmath414)\times \lambda([\beta ] ) \subseteq ser$ ] implies @xmath599\cup [ \beta]v ) \in [ u]$ ] . hence , @xmath600\cup [ \beta]v$ ] is also a stratified extension of @xmath85 , which contradicts that @xmath207 \hat{{\prec } } [ \beta]$ ] . using a similar argument , we can show using proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ( 1,4 ) and using proposition  [ prop : covlsos ] ( 1,2 ) .      : since @xmath601 , it follows from corollary  [ cor : szpstrat ] that there exists @xmath595 where @xmath602 . since @xmath603\bigr\ } } = ext(s_{[u]})$ ] , there exists a sequence @xmath604 $ ] such that @xmath605 . this implies @xmath53 and @xmath70 belong to the same step in @xmath606 . thus , we have @xmath573 .
Abstract:

Answer: this paper defines a class of labeled stratified order structures that characterizes exactly the notion of _ _ com__bined _ traces _ ( i.e. , _ comtraces _ ) proposed by janicki and koutny in 1995 . our main technical contributions are the representation theorems showing that comtrace quotient monoid , _ combined dependency graph _ ( kleijn and koutny 2008 ) and our labeled stratified order structure characterization are three different and yet equivalent ways to represent comtraces . + * keywords . * causality theory of concurrency , combined traces monoids , step sequences , stratified order structures , label - preserving isomorphism .