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: we investigate distributed supervisory control of concurrent discrete - event systems . supervisory control theory of discrete - event systems modeled as finite automata was introduced by ramadge and wonham  @xcite and studied by many others . it aims to guarantee that the control specifications consisting of safety and of nonblockingness are satisfied in the controlled ( closed - loop ) system . safety means that the language of the closed - loop system is included in a prescribed specification , and nonblockingness means that all controlled behaviors can always be completed to a marked controlled behavior . supervisory control is realized by a supervisor that runs in parallel with the system and imposes the specification by disabling , at each state , some of the controllable events in a feedback manner . since only controllable specifications can be achieved , one of the key issues is the computation of the supremal controllable sublanguage of the specification , from which the supervisor can be constructed . supervisory control theory is well developed for monolithic systems , i.e. , systems where the plant is modeled as a single generator . however , most of the current complex engineering systems can be abstracted as a composition of many components . systems that model technological systems typically consist of small generators that communicate with each other in a synchronous  @xcite or asynchronous  @xcite way . such systems are often called modular ( or concurrent or distributed ) discrete - event systems . it is known that to compute the overall monolithic plant for such a system can be unrealistic because the number of states of a modular system grows exponentially with respect to the number of components . this limits the applicability of the monolithic supervisory control synthesis to relatively small systems . on the other hand , the purely decentralized control consisting of an independent construction of a supervisor for each subsystem is only applicable for a local ( decomposable ) specification . specifically , let @xmath0 and @xmath1 be two systems over the respective alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 modeled as finite generators forming the overall plant @xmath4 , the computation of which we want to avoid , and let @xmath5 denote a specification . there exists a monolithic supervisor for the monolithic plant @xmath4 if and only if the specification is controllable with respect to the plant . however , to avoid the computation of the monolithic plant @xmath4 , the naive approach to compute supervisors for each subsystem separately does not work in general . to demonstrate this , assume that we compute supervisors @xmath6 such that @xmath7 , where @xmath8 denotes the projection of the specification @xmath9 to the alphabet of the generator @xmath10 . then , it can still be the case that @xmath11 . the problem here is that the specification is not necessarily decomposable . recall that a languages @xmath12 is decomposable ( or separable ) with respect to alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 if @xmath13 , where @xmath14 is a natural projection ( see more details below ) . if a language is not decomposable , it would be natural to search for some `` maximal '' decomposable sublanguage . unfortunately , this is not algorithmically possible  @xcite .    to deal with this problem , we introduced the notion of _ conditional decomposability_. conditional decomposability of a language @xmath12 with respect to alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 requires to find another alphabet @xmath15 such that the language @xmath12 is decomposable with respect to @xmath16 and @xmath17 , i.e. , @xmath18 , see more details below . the difference between decomposability and conditional decomposability is that every language can be made conditionally decomposable , which overcomes the undecidable problem of finding a nonempty decomposable sublanguage discussed above . in other words , we can always find an alphabet @xmath15 such that the language becomes conditionally decomposable . indeed , one could take @xmath19 , but the aim is to find a reasonably small such alphabet . although to find a minimal alphabet is np - hard  @xcite , a polynomial - time algorithm to find an acceptable alphabet is described in  @xcite . the observation that conditional decomposability is always possible leads us to the formulation of the following problem that we investigate in this paper . [ problem1 ] let @xmath0 and @xmath1 be generators over the alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 , respectively . assume that a specification @xmath20 and its prefix - closure @xmath21 are conditionally decomposable with respect to @xmath2 , @xmath3 , and @xmath15 , for some alphabet @xmath15 such that @xmath22 . let @xmath23 be a coordinator that ensures the necessary communication between the systems @xmath0 and @xmath1 . the aim is to determine nonblocking supervisors @xmath24 and @xmath25 such that the supervised distributed system satisfies @xmath26 ) \parallel l_m(s_{2}/ [ g_2 \| g_k ] ) = k        & & \text { and } & &        l(s_{1}/ [ g_1 \| g_k ] ) \parallel l(s_{2}/ [ g_2 \| g_k ] ) = \overline{k}\ , ,      \end{aligned}\ ] ] i.e. , it fulfills the specification and the supervisors are nonconflicting . in other words , the question is whether it is possible to distribute the monolithic ( global ) supervisor with help of a coordinator in such a way that there exist nonblocking and nonconflicting supervisors @xmath27 and @xmath28 such that the supervised distributed closed - loop system satisfies safety and nonblockingness .    note that we restrict ourselves to the case , where the coordinator @xmath29 does not affect the behavior of the whole system . the case where @xmath29 can influence the system , i.e. , the new plant is @xmath30 , is left for the future investigation . however , it should be pointed out that one has to be careful with this modification , since the coordinator could influence the system in such a way that it forbids some uncontrollable events , which may be physically impossible . a possible solution would be to consider only such coordinators @xmath29 that are controllable with respect to ( some projection of ) @xmath4 .    in this paper , we investigate problem  [ problem1 ] . we provide a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a solution , which results in a decision procedure and in an algorithm to compute the solution , if it exists . as usual , if the solution does not exist , we make use of the coordination control methods to construct an acceptable sub - specification for which a solution exists , measured with respect to the solution provided in the coordination control framework . moreover , we relax the coordination control framework so that the main results of the framework still hold , but the presentation is simplified and potentially larger solutions can be achieved . however , we do not claim that the use of the coordination control framework is the best here , we only show that it is possible to use it here . it is an interesting research topic whether other methods could be used to obtain a better solution . related work that could be useful to achieve this includes , but is not limited to , @xcite . the paper is organized as follows . in section  [ sec : preliminaries ] , the necessary notation is introduced and the basic elements of supervisory control theory are recalled . in section [ sec : existenceofsolution ] , we provide necessary and sufficient conditions under which the solution of the problem exists . in section  [ sec : relaxation ] , we recall the basic coordination control framework and introduce its relaxed variant . in section [ sec : comparison ] , we compare problem  [ problem1 ] with the ( relaxed ) coordination control problem . in section  [ sec : app ] , we make use of the relaxed coordination control to find a reasonable sub - specification for which a solution exists if a solution for the specification does not exist . an industrial example is provided in section  [ sec : mri ] . we discuss only the full - observation case here . the approach can be extended to partial observations using either the notion of ( conditional ) normality of  @xcite or the notion of ( conditional ) relative observability of  @xcite . let @xmath31 denote a finite nonempty set of events ( an _ alphabet _ ) , and let @xmath32 denote the set of all finite words over @xmath31 . the empty word is denoted by @xmath33 . a _ language _ over @xmath31 is a subset of @xmath32 . the prefix closure of a language @xmath12 over @xmath31 is the set @xmath34 . a language @xmath12 is _ prefix - closed _ if @xmath35 . for more details , the reader is referred to  @xcite . a _ generator _ is a structure @xmath36 , where @xmath37 is the finite set of states , @xmath31 is the finite nonempty set of events , @xmath38 is the partial transition function , @xmath39 is the initial state , and @xmath40 is the set of marked states . the transition function @xmath41 can be extended to the domain @xmath42 in the usual way . the behavior of @xmath43 is described in terms of languages . the language _ generated _ by @xmath43 is the set @xmath44 , and the language _ marked _ by @xmath43 is the set @xmath45 . obviously , @xmath46 .    for @xmath47 , a _ ( natural ) projection _ is a mapping @xmath48 , which deletes from any word all letters that belong to @xmath49 . formally , it is a homomorphism defined by @xmath50 , for @xmath51 in @xmath49 , and @xmath52 , for @xmath51 in @xmath53 . it is extended ( as a homomorphism for concatenation ) from letters to words by induction . the _ inverse image _ of @xmath54 is denoted by @xmath55 . for three alphabets @xmath56 , @xmath57 , @xmath58 , subsets of @xmath31 , the notation @xmath59 denotes the projection from @xmath60 to @xmath61 . if @xmath62 , we simplify the notation to @xmath63 . similarly , the notation @xmath64 stands for the projection from @xmath32 to @xmath65 . the projection of a generator @xmath43 , denoted by @xmath66 , is a generator whose behavior satisfies @xmath67 and @xmath68 . it is defined using the standard subset construction , cf . @xcite . the synchronous product of languages @xmath69 over @xmath2 and @xmath70 over @xmath3 is the language @xmath71 , where @xmath72 is a projection , @xmath73 . a definition for generators can be found in  @xcite . for generators @xmath0 and @xmath1 , @xmath74 and @xmath75 . languages @xmath9 and @xmath12 are _ synchronously nonconflicting _ if @xmath76 . we recall the basic elements of supervisory control theory . a _ controlled generator _ over an alphabet @xmath31 is a structure @xmath77 , where @xmath43 is a generator over the alphabet @xmath31 , @xmath78 is the set of _ controllable events _ , @xmath79 is the set of _ uncontrollable events _ , and @xmath80 is the _ set of control patterns_. a _ supervisor _ for the controlled generator @xmath77 is a map @xmath81 . the _ closed - loop system _ associated with the controlled generator @xmath77 and the supervisor @xmath82 is defined as the smallest language @xmath83 such that @xmath84 , and if @xmath85 , @xmath86 , and @xmath87 , then @xmath88 . the marked language of the closed - loop system is defined as @xmath89 , where @xmath90 is a specification . the intuition is that the supervisor disables some of the controllable transitions of @xmath43 , but never an uncontrollable transition , and marks in accordance with the specification . if @xmath91 , then the supervisor @xmath82 is called _ nonblocking_.    in the automata framework , where a supervisor @xmath82 has a finite representation as a generator , basically it is the generator @xmath43 with some of the controllable events disabled , the closed - loop system is a synchronous product of the supervisor and the plant . thus , we can write the closed - loop system as @xmath92 . moreover , the supervisor keeps the information about the marked states , i.e. , we have that @xmath93 . the supervisor is then nonblocking if @xmath94 . control objectives of supervisory control are defined using a specification @xmath9 . the goal of supervisory control is to find a nonblocking supervisor @xmath82 such that @xmath95 . in the monolithic case , such a supervisor exists if and only if @xmath9 is _ controllable _ with respect to @xmath96 and @xmath97 ( i.e. , @xmath98 ) , cf . @xcite . if the specification fails to satisfy controllability , controllable sublanguages of the specification are considered instead . let @xmath99 denote the supremal controllable sublanguage of @xmath9 with respect to @xmath96 and @xmath97 , which always exists and is equal to the union of all controllable sublanguages of @xmath9 , cf . @xcite . the projection @xmath100 , with @xmath47 , is an _ @xmath12-observer _ for @xmath101 if , for all @xmath102 and @xmath103 , @xmath104 is a prefix of @xmath105 implies that there exists @xmath106 such that @xmath107 and @xmath108 , see  @xcite . this property is well known and widely used in supervisory control of hierarchical and distributed discrete - event systems , and , as mentioned in  @xcite , also in compositional verification  @xcite and modular synthesis  @xcite . if the projection does not satisfy the property , the co - domain of the projection can be extended so that it is satisfied . although the computation of such a minimal extension is np - hard , there exists a polynomial - time algorithm that finds an acceptable extension  @xcite . more information can be found in  @xcite . a language @xmath9 is _ conditionally decomposable _ with respect to alphabets @xmath2 , @xmath3 , and @xmath15 , where @xmath109 , if @xmath110 where @xmath111 is a projection , for @xmath73 . the definition is extended to more alphabets in a natural way .    for simplicity , we formulated problem  [ problem1 ] only for two subsystems . however , it is clear how to extend it to @xmath112 subsystems . it should perhaps be pointed out that for @xmath112 , the set @xmath15 contains all shared events @xmath113 . we define the coordinator @xmath29 as the parallel composition of projections . it is a folklore in automata theory that , in the worst case , the computation of a projected generator can be of exponential size with respect to the number of states of the original generator . however , it is known that if the projection satisfies the observer property , then the projected generator is smaller than the original generator  @xcite . therefore , we suggest the following steps to compute the alphabet @xmath15 and the coordinator @xmath29 :    1 . let @xmath114 be the set of all shared events of the generators @xmath0 and @xmath1 . 2 .   extend the alphabet @xmath15 so that @xmath9 and @xmath21 are conditionally decomposable with respect to @xmath2 , @xmath3 , and @xmath15 , cf . @xcite for a polynomial algorithm . 3 .   if the computation of @xmath29 in the following step is not possible ( e.g. , because of the state explosion ) , extend the alphabet @xmath15 so that the projection @xmath115 is an @xmath116-observer , for @xmath73 , cf . 4 .   define the coordinator @xmath29 as @xmath23 , where @xmath117 . we now provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a solution for problem  [ problem1 ] . [ thm : char ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] . there are nonblocking and nonconflicting supervisors @xmath24 and @xmath25 such that the distributed closed - loop system satisfies @xmath118 ) \parallel l_m(s_{2}/[g_2 \| g_k ] ) = k      $ ] if and only if @xmath119 , @xmath120 , and @xmath27 and @xmath28 are nonblocking and nonconflicting supervisors with respect to @xmath121 and @xmath122 , respectively . the second part of the theorem gives us the following equations with variable languages @xmath123 and @xmath124 : @xmath125    let @xmath126 denote the infimal _ prefix - closed _ controllable superlanguage of @xmath9 with respect to @xmath12 , cf . . then we immediately have the following .    [ lem1 ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] . if the specification @xmath9 is prefix - closed , then there exists a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] if and only if the languages @xmath127 and @xmath128 satisfy equations  ( [ sol1 ] ) . the infimal controllable superlanguage is prefix - closed and it is not possible to compute the infimal non - prefix - closed controllable superlanguage , since it does not always exist . thus , the previous lemma can not be directly used for non - prefix - closed languages . however , we show that it is surprisingly sufficient to verify whether there exists a solution for the prefix - closure of the specification . [ thmmain ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] . there exists a solution for specification @xmath9 if and only if there exists a solution for its prefix - closure @xmath21 . in other words , assuming that @xmath9 and @xmath21 are conditionally decomposable , it is sufficient to check whether there exists a solution for the prefix - closure @xmath21 of the specification @xmath9 using proposition  [ lem1 ] . by theorem  [ thmmain ] , this implies a solution for the specification @xmath9 , which can actually be derived from the solution for @xmath21 . if a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] does not exist , we make use of the coordination control framework to obtain an acceptable sublanguage of the specification for which a solution exists . coordination control is based on the concept of conditional independence of probability theory , which allows for coordinated systems not only in discrete - event systems , but also in linear , stochastic , and hybrid systems , see  @xcite . we first recall the original coordination control framework and then relax it so that it admits more and larger solutions , cf . example  [ ex1 ] . we briefly recall the original coordination control framework developed in  @xcite . the notation is that of  @xcite . [ problem : origcontrolsynthesis ] consider generators @xmath0 and @xmath1 over the alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 , resp . , and a generator @xmath29 ( a _ coordinator _ ) over an alphabet @xmath15 , where @xmath129 . assume that a specification @xmath130 and its prefix - closure @xmath21 are conditionally decomposable with respect to @xmath2 , @xmath3 , and @xmath15 . the aim is to determine nonblocking supervisors @xmath27 , @xmath28 , and @xmath131 such that @xmath132 , @xmath133)\subseteq p_{i+k}(k)$ ] , for @xmath73 , and the closed - loop system with the coordinator satisfies @xmath134 ) \parallel l_m(s_2/ [ g_2 \| ( s_k / g_k ) ] ) = k$ ] . although the coordinator @xmath29 in the statement of problem  [ problem : origcontrolsynthesis ] is a general automaton , we suggested to construct it in the same way as in problem  [ problem1 ] . therefore , we may assume that @xmath23 . in what follows , we use the notation @xmath135 to denote the set of locally uncontrollable events of the alphabet @xmath56 . [ def : origconditionalcontrollability ] let @xmath0 and @xmath1 be generators over @xmath2 and @xmath3 , respectively , and let @xmath29 be a coordinator over @xmath15 . a language @xmath136 is _ conditionally controllable _ for generators @xmath0 , @xmath1 , @xmath29 and uncontrollable alphabets @xmath137 , @xmath138 , @xmath139 if ( i ) @xmath140 is controllable with respect to @xmath141 and @xmath139 and ( ii ) @xmath142 is controllable with respect to @xmath143 and @xmath144 , where @xmath145 , for @xmath73 .    the main existential result follows .    consider the setting of problem  [ problem : origcontrolsynthesis ] . there exist nonblocking supervisors @xmath27 , @xmath28 , and @xmath131 such that @xmath146 ) \parallel l_m(s_2/[g_2 \| ( s_k / g_k ) ] ) =   k$ ] if and only if the specification @xmath9 is conditionally controllable with respect to generators @xmath0 , @xmath1 , @xmath29 and uncontrollable alphabets @xmath137 , @xmath138 , @xmath139 .    similarly as in the monolithic supervisory control , if the specification fails to be conditionally controllable , the supremal conditionally controllable sublanguage is computed . it always exists  @xcite . consider the setting of problem  [ problem : origcontrolsynthesis ] and define the languages @xmath147 for @xmath73 . if @xmath148 and @xmath149 are nonconflicting and @xmath150 is controllable with respect to @xmath141 and @xmath139 , then @xmath151 is the supremal conditionally controllable sublanguage of @xmath9 . otherwise , we compute a new supervisor @xmath152 denoted @xmath153 . this gives the following result , which is not stated in  @xcite , but is in a more general form stated in  @xcite . [ thm4 ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem : origcontrolsynthesis ] and the languages defined above . if @xmath154 and @xmath155 are synchronously nonconflicting ( e.g. , prefix - closed ) for @xmath73 , then @xmath156 is the supremal conditionally controllable sublanguage of @xmath9 .      in this section , we relax the coordination control problem . proofs of the results presented in this section can be found in the technical report  @xcite . unlike the original approach , the supervisor for the coordinator is not computed and , thus , it is not included in the closed - loop system . we comment on this below the definition . [ problem : relaxed ] consider generators @xmath0 and @xmath1 over the alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 , respectively . let @xmath15 be an alphabet such that @xmath22 . a generator @xmath29 over the alphabet @xmath15 is called a coordinator . assume that a specification @xmath130 and its prefix - closure @xmath21 are conditionally decomposable with respect to @xmath2 , @xmath3 , and @xmath15 . the aim is to determine nonblocking supervisors @xmath27 and @xmath28 such that @xmath157)\subseteq p_{i+k}(k)$ ] , for @xmath73 , and the closed - loop system satisfies @xmath158 ) \parallel l_m(s_2/ [ g_2 \| g_k ] ) = k$ ] . the construction of a coordinator remains unchanged , compared to the original framework . the difference between the original and the relaxed problem is that the supervisor @xmath131 and , hence , the closed - loop system @xmath159 for the coordinator part of the specification is not computed . the original motivation to include the supervisor @xmath131 was the anti - monotonicity of the basic supervisory control operator ( the supremal controllable sublanguage ) . indeed , if the specification is fixed , then making the plant language smaller results in increasing permissiveness of the supervisors given by the supremal controllable sublanguages . however , it turns out that decreasing the plant @xmath160 for the local supervisors by replacing @xmath29 with , in general , a smaller closed - loop system @xmath159 does not change the permissiveness of the local closed - loop systems @xmath161 $ ] . this is because of the transitivity of controllability , since the closed - loop @xmath159 is always controllable with respect to @xmath29 . this means that a language @xmath162 is controllable with respect to @xmath163 if and only if it is controllable with respect to @xmath164 . for this reason , the supervisor for the coordinator does not help and is not used in the relaxed framework . [ def : conditionalcontrollability ] let @xmath0 and @xmath1 be generators over the alphabets @xmath2 and @xmath3 , respectively , and let @xmath29 be a coordinator over the alphabet @xmath15 . a language @xmath136 is _ relaxed conditionally controllable _ for generators @xmath0 , @xmath1 , @xmath29 if the projected specification @xmath142 is controllable with respect to @xmath165 and @xmath144 , where @xmath166 , for @xmath73 .    by definition , any solution of the coordination control problem is also a solution of the relaxed coordination control problem . the opposite does not hold as demonstrated in the following simple example . [ ex1 ] let @xmath167 and @xmath168 , where the set of controllable events is @xmath169 . let the specification @xmath9 be the composition of @xmath170 and @xmath171 . then @xmath9 it is conditionally decomposable with respect to @xmath172 , @xmath173 , and @xmath174 . notice that @xmath175 and @xmath176 . therefore , @xmath140 is _ not _ controllable with respect to @xmath141 , thus it is _ not _ conditionally controllable and , hence , not a solution of the original coordination control problem . moreover , there does not exist a nonempty controllable sublanguage of @xmath140 that is controllable with respect to @xmath141 . on the other hand , @xmath177 and @xmath178 , hence @xmath142 is controllable with respect to @xmath179 , for @xmath73 . since nothing is required for @xmath140 in the relaxed framework , @xmath9 is a solution of the relaxed coordination control problem . the advantage of the relaxed framework is thus not only a simplification of the notation , but also the fact that there exist solutions in the relaxed framework that can not be achieved in the original coordination control framework . however , we should mention that the relaxed framework also restricts the set of potential solutions , i.e. , there exist solutions of problem  [ problem1 ] that can not be achieved in the relaxed framework . this will be clarified in section  [ sec : comparison ] . therefore , further relaxations of this framework would be of interest . we now show that the main results of the original framework hold in the relaxed framework , too . [ th : controlsynthesissafety ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem : relaxed ] . there exist nonblocking supervisors @xmath27 and @xmath28 such that the closed - loop system satisfies @xmath180 ) \parallel l_m(s_2/[g_2 \| g_k ] ) = k$ ] if and only if the specification @xmath9 is relaxed conditionally controllable for generators @xmath0 , @xmath1 , @xmath29 . if the specification can not be achieved as the resulting behavior of the coordinated system according to theorem  [ th : controlsynthesissafety ] , we describe a procedure to compute the maximal sublanguage of the specification that satisfies both these conditions . we use the notation @xmath181 to denote the supremal relaxed conditionally controllable sublanguage of @xmath9 with respect to plant @xmath182 and the sets of uncontrollable events @xmath137 , @xmath138 , @xmath139 , which exists and equals to the union of all relaxed conditionally controllable sublanguages of the language @xmath9 . furthermore , we define the supremal controllable languages for the local plants combined with the coordinator . consider the setting of problem  [ problem : relaxed ] and define the languages @xmath183 where @xmath184 denotes the supremal controllable sublanguage of @xmath9 with respect to @xmath12 and @xmath97 . we now generalize the sufficient conditions for a distributed computation of the supremal conditionally controllable sublanguage from the original to the relaxed framework . the sufficient conditions are formulated in terms of controllability of the composition of local supervisors projected to the coordinator alphabet . the first main constructive result of the relaxed coordination control framework to guarantee relaxed conditional controllability in a maximally permissive way is stated below . [ thm2b ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem : relaxed ] and the languages defined in  ( [ eqcnr ] ) . if @xmath185 and @xmath186 are synchronously nonconflicting and @xmath187 is controllable with respect to @xmath141 and @xmath139 , then @xmath188 , for @xmath182 .    the question remains what happens if the intersection of the projections is not controllable as required in theorem  [ thm2b ] . we believed in the past that a solution to the coordination control problem ( in terms of a conditionally controllable sublanguage ) can only be computed as a product of languages in some special cases , where sufficient conditions such as those presented in  @xcite hold . however , due to the presented relaxation , it becomes clear that such a solution can always be computed in a distributed way for prefix - closed specifications . namely , it suffices to make the resulting language @xmath189 controllable with respect to @xmath141 , as required in theorem  [ thm2b ] , by computing a supervisor for it as the following result suggests . [ prop2 ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem : relaxed ] and the languages defined in  ( [ eqcnr ] ) . let @xmath190 denote the language @xmath191 . if the languages @xmath192 and @xmath155 are synchronously nonconflicting ( e.g. , prefix - closed ) for @xmath73 , then @xmath193 is a relaxed conditionally controllable sublanguage of @xmath9 . interestingly , we rediscover this way the role of a supervisor for the coordinator that is postponed to the end of the coordination control synthesis and it is used only when needed , i.e. , when controllability of @xmath189 with respect to @xmath141 does not hold . moreover , the supervisor @xmath153 can be computed in a distributed way , i.e. , we can compute @xmath194 . their composition ( here intersection ) is then never computed and they operate locally in conjunction with local supervisors @xmath192 , @xmath73 .    compared to theorem  [ thm4 ] , proposition  [ prop2 ] only states that the result is a relaxed conditionally controllable sublanguage of the specification . we do not know whether the supremality also holds here . nevertheless , we should point out that the languages @xmath192 , @xmath73 , actually form a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] as discuss in section  [ sec : comparison ] below , even though their parallel composition is not necessarily relaxed conditionally controllable . from this point of view , to decrease the language by the composition with an additional coordinator , @xmath153 , is not relevant for us . this demonstrates the already mentioned drawback of the ( relaxed ) coordination control framework  the restriction of the set of possible solutions , compared to the set of possible solutions for problem  [ problem1 ] ; see more details in section  [ sec : comparison ] below .    to compare the solutions of problem  [ problem1 ] and those of ( relaxed ) coordination control problem , we need the following . [ thm_inc_opt_sol ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem : relaxed ] and the languages defined in  ( [ supccn ] ) , ( [ eqcnr ] ) . then the language @xmath195 , i.e. , the supremal relaxed conditionally controllable sublanguage is included in our distributed solution . if @xmath185 and @xmath186 are synchronously nonconflicting ( e.g. , prefix - closed ) , then the parallel composition is controllable , i.e. , @xmath196 . we now discuss conditions that ensures optimality . the proofs are similar to those in  @xcite . to this end , we use the notions of output control consistency ( occ ) , cf . @xcite , or local control consistency ( lcc ) , cf . @xcite . [ thm_opt_cond ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem : relaxed ] and the languages defined in  ( [ eqcnr ] ) . if the projection @xmath64 is an @xmath197-observer and occ ( lcc ) for @xmath197 , @xmath73 , then the parallel composition of the supervisors contains the optimal solution , i.e. , @xmath198 . note that we assume that @xmath64 is an @xmath199-observer and occ ( lcc ) for @xmath199 . however , we do not want to compute the language @xmath199 . instead , we can assume that ( i ) @xmath200 is an @xmath201-observer and ( ii ) @xmath64 is occ ( lcc ) for the language @xmath202 . these can be ensured by an appropriate extension of the alphabet @xmath15 , cf . @xcite and @xcite , respectively . here we highlight the difference between problem  [ problem1 ] and the relaxed coordination control problem . on one hand , we show the drawback of relaxed coordination control that prevents it from fully solving problem  [ problem1 ] . on the other hand , we appreciate it since it can be used to find a solution . we now point out the main difference between the two problems . let @xmath203 be a plant , and let @xmath204 denote a specification as in problem  [ problem1 ] . consider the computation of supervisors @xmath185 and @xmath186 as defined in ( [ eqcnr ] ) . for simplicity , we assume that the languages under consideration are prefix - closed . assume that the parallel composition @xmath205 is not relaxed conditionally controllable . this is not an unrealistic assumption . then these two languages do not form a solution in the relaxed coordination control framework . however , note that ( a generator for ) @xmath192 is a supervisor for the plant @xmath160 , since @xmath192 is controllable with respect to @xmath160 by definition . let @xmath206 . then @xmath207 is conditionally decomposable and controllable with respect to the original plant , and @xmath208 which means that @xmath192 , @xmath73 , is a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] that can not be achieved in the relaxed coordination control framework , since @xmath207 is not relaxed conditionally controllable by definition . ( here we slightly abuse the notation and use @xmath192 to denote both the generator and the language of that generator , depending on the context . ) the inclusion @xmath209 is required in the definition of the relaxed coordination control problem . but it does not hold in general , therefore we do not assume the inclusion to be satisfied in problem  [ problem1 ] . this is the main difference between problem  [ problem1 ] and the ( relaxed ) coordination control problem . the following example shows that there exist solutions that can not be achieved in the relaxed framework . let @xmath0 and @xmath1 be plants as shown in fig .  [ figexl1plants ] , and let @xmath9 denote the specification with the generator depicted in fig . [ figexl1spec ] .     and @xmath1,title="fig : " ]   and @xmath1,title="fig : " ]        let @xmath210 . notice that @xmath9 is conditionally decomposable . the coordinator @xmath29 is depicted in fig . [ figexl1coord ] .    ] then @xmath211 and @xmath212 and it is not hard to see that the language @xmath213 is not controllable with respect to @xmath214 , hence @xmath9 is not relaxed conditionally controllable . if we use the relaxed coordination control framework to compute supervisors , we obtain @xmath148 and @xmath149 depicted in fig . [ figexl1ccsups ] . and @xmath149 computed in the relaxed coordination control framework , title="fig : " ]   and @xmath149 computed in the relaxed coordination control framework , title="fig : " ]    this is not the optimal solution , i.e. , their parallel composition is not equal to @xmath9 . on the other hand , we can obtain the specification if we consider infimal superlanguages of @xmath142 , namely for @xmath215 . then we obtain the supervisors depicted in fig . [ figexl1infopt ] that form the optimal solution .     and @xmath28 for the problem obtained by considering infimal superlanguages , title="fig : " ]   and @xmath28 for the problem obtained by considering infimal superlanguages , title="fig : " ]    however , if the solution of problem  [ problem1 ] does not exist , the relaxed coordination control framework allows us to compute a sublanguage of the specification for which a solution exists . the other advantage of this is that we can compare the obtained solution with the supremal relaxed conditionally controllable sublanguage of the specification ; see below . consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] . theorem  [ th : controlsynthesissafety ] says that if @xmath9 is relaxed conditionally controllable , then there exist nonblocking and nonconflicting supervisors @xmath24 and @xmath25 such that @xmath118 ) \parallel l_m(s_{2}/[g_2 \| g_k ] ) = k\ , . $ ] recall the languages @xmath185 and @xmath186 defined above in ( [ eqcnr ] ) . by definition , we immediately have that @xmath216 i.e. , it is potentially a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] . we now show that it is actually a solution and compare it with the optimal solution of the relaxed framework . the following is basically theorem  [ thm_inc_opt_sol ] . [ optimality ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] and the languages defined in  ( [ supccn ] ) , ( [ eqcnr ] ) . if the supervisors @xmath185 and @xmath186 are synchronously nonconflicting ( e.g. , prefix - closed ) , then their parallel composition is controllable . if the languages ( supervisors ) in the previous theorem are conflicting , we still have a solution for the global plant @xmath4 , namely , the language @xmath217 , where @xmath218 denotes the nonblocking generator of @xmath219 . then @xmath220 is a supervisor such that @xmath221 and @xmath222 , so it can be considered as a solution of the monolithic case with the supervisor @xmath220 . however , our aim is not to compute the parallel composition of supervisors @xmath27 and @xmath28 to obtain a single huge supervisor , but rather to distribute the supervision to local plants . taking a look at the previous theorem , we can notice that @xmath223 . however , if the supervisors @xmath27 and @xmath28 are conflicting , we only have that @xmath224 , i.e. , the overall supervised closed - loop system is blocking . to solve nonblockingness here , we can use the language @xmath225 where the projection @xmath226 is a @xmath154-observer , @xmath73 , which serves as a coordinator for nonconflictingness . the following can be proved similarly as in  @xcite , based on the results of  @xcite . [ thm22 ] consider the notation of problem  [ problem1 ] and the languages defined in  ( [ eqcnr ] ) and  ( [ eq2 ] ) . then the language @xmath227 is controllable with respect to the plant @xmath228 . we can now summarize the method as an algorithm . [ alg ] consider the above .    1 .   check whether problem  [ problem1 ] has a solution using proposition  [ lem1 ] . if so , stop ; otherwise , continue . 2 .   compute @xmath185 and @xmath186 as defined in ( [ eqcnr ] ) . 3 .   let @xmath229 and @xmath230 . 4 .   extend the alphabet @xmath53 so that the projection @xmath226 is both a @xmath185- and a @xmath186-observer . 5 .   define the coordinator @xmath231 as the minimal nonblocking generator such that @xmath232 from  ( [ eq2 ] ) . see more comments on this algorithm in  @xcite . to demonstrate our approach on an industrial example , we consider the model and specification of an mri scanner presented by theunissen  @xcite . the plant consists of four parts @xmath233 where each part is again a composition of several smaller parts . however , we do not go into these details and consider these parts as the four subsystems that form the plant . the specification consists of the parts @xmath234 which do not exactly correspond the the four parts of the plant . for all computations , we used the c++ library ` libfaudes `  @xcite . we now observe the following . \(1 ) vreq is a specification that concerns only the plant vaxis . this is a simple case with one plant , hence a monolithic approach was used . the specification has 12 states and 44 transitions , the plant has 15 states and 50 transitions , and the computed supervisor has 15 states and 36 transitions . \(2 ) similarly , hreq is a specification that concerns only the plant haxis . again , the monolithic supervisor was computed . the specification has 112 states and 736 transitions , the plant has 128 states and 1002 transitions , and the computed supervisor consists of 80 states and 320 transitions . \(3 ) the specification hvreq concerns the plant @xmath235 . the specification consists of 7 states and 35 transitions , the plant hvnormal consists of 1 state and 1 transition ( the other two parts of the plant are mentioned above ) . we computed a coordinator consisting of 160 states and 1287 transitions and three supervisors with 516 , 1132 and 283 states and 3395 , 10298 and 1692 transitions , respectively . it was verified that their parallel composition is nonblocking and corresponds to the supremal controllable sublanguage of the specification hvreq with respect to the plant @xmath236 . \(4 ) the specification uireq concerns the whole plant @xmath237 . therefore it is the most interesting part to demonstrate our approach . let us mention that uireq consists of 256 states and 2336 transitions , and ui consists of 2 states and 15 transitions ( the rest is described above ) . we computed a coordinator with 4 states and 30 transitions , and four supervisors with 432 , 768 , 12 , and 96 states and 3488 , 6652 , 74 and 808 transitions , respectively . the overall minimal monolithic supervisor for the whole system would consist of 68672 states and 616000 transitions . we have verified that our solution is an optimal solution to problem  [ problem1 ] . we have verified that it forms a solution in both coordination control architectures discussed in the paper . due to the modeling skills of the modeler and the nature of the model , there were no problems with blockingness at any step of the computation . all the computed supervisors are nonblocking and nonconflicting , thus no coordinator for nonblockingness was needed . the results are formulated for general , non - prefix - closed languages , for which synchronous nonconflictingness is required . one could find it an issue , but these assumptions are trivially satisfied for , e.g. , prefix - closed languages . to verify whether a synchronous product ( of an unspecified number ) of generators is synchronously nonconflicting is pspace - complete  @xcite . it is only the worst case . some optimization techniques exist , e.g.  @xcite , or a maximal nonconflicting sublanguage can be computed  @xcite . the good news of pspace - completeness is that it is computable in polynomial space . all concepts and results can be extended from the generic case @xmath238 in a straightforward manner . however , with an increasing number of components it is likely that the coordinator will , in some situations , grow , e.g. , many events will have to be included into the coordinator alphabet to make the global specification conditionally decomposable . therefore we have recently proposed a multilevel coordination control architecture  @xcite . the approach of this paper can easily be implemented in such a multilevel structure . a challenging and important problem is to find a convenient alphabet @xmath15 , from which the coordinator is computed . a natural step is to take a minimal such alphabet . there are two issues with this choice . first , to compute the minimal @xmath15 is np - hard , second , there exist examples showing evidence that the use of a minimal alphabet results in no solutions ( in empty supervisors ) . this means that we need to find a larger alphabet for which a solution can be obtained . this is always possible , since @xmath15 can be taken as the global alphabet . however , the aim is to characterize a reasonable choice of the alphabet that would provide nonempty solutions .    in the future , we plan to take into account communication delays and losses and to consider more complicated forms of communications among local controllers . the research was supported by rvo 67985840 , by mmt in project music ( grant lh13012 ) , by gar in project ga15 - 02532s and by the dfg in project diamond ( emmy noether grant kr  4381/1 - 1 ) . lemma  [ thm : char ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] . there exist nonblocking and nonconflicting supervisors @xmath24 and @xmath25 such that the distributed closed - loop system satisfies @xmath118 ) \| l_m(s_{2}/[g_2 \| g_k ] ) = k      $ ] if and only if @xmath239 , @xmath240 , and @xmath27 and @xmath28 are nonblocking and nonconflicting supervisors with respect to @xmath121 and @xmath122 , respectively . proposition  [ lem1 ] consider the setting of problem  [ problem1 ] . if the specification @xmath9 is prefix - closed , then there exists a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] if and only if the languages @xmath127 and @xmath128 satisfy equations  ( [ sol1 ] ) . ( if ) assume that @xmath251 and @xmath252 . since @xmath253 and @xmath254 are prefix - closed , hence nonblocking and nonconflicting , and controllable with respect to the corresponding plants , that is , they are supervisors for those plants , the implication follows from lemma  [ thm : char ] . ( only if ) assume that there is a solution of problem  [ problem1 ] . by lemma [ thm : char ] , there exist supervisors @xmath27 and @xmath28 satisfying equations ( [ sol1 ] ) . since @xmath6 is a supervisor , its language ( for simplicity also denoted by @xmath6 ) is controllable with respect to @xmath160 . moreover , @xmath6 contains @xmath142 , hence @xmath255 , for @xmath73 . then , @xmath256 thus , @xmath253 and @xmath254 satisfy equations ( [ sol1 ] ) . let @xmath27 and @xmath28 denote the solution for specification @xmath9 . if @xmath239 , then @xmath257 by nonconflictingness and nonblockingness of the supervisors . similarly for the other equation thus , @xmath258 and @xmath259 form a solution for @xmath21 . let @xmath260 and @xmath261 denote the generators of the solution for the prefix - closed language @xmath21 , that is , @xmath262 for @xmath73 , we now define the marking on @xmath260 and @xmath261 as follows : @xmath263 note that @xmath264 , since @xmath265 .    we show that @xmath266 is nonblocking , that is , @xmath267 . to this end , let @xmath268 . if @xmath269 , then @xmath270 by definition . if @xmath271 , then there exists a word @xmath272 such that @xmath273 . hence @xmath274 . thus , @xmath275 .    moreover , @xmath276 is controllable with respect to the plant @xmath164 , because , by assumption , @xmath277 is . thus , @xmath266 is a marking nonblocking supervisor for @xmath160 . furthermore , we have that @xmath278
Abstract:

Answer: in this paper , we discuss a supervisory control problem of modular discrete - event systems that allows for a distributed computation of supervisors . we provide a characterization and an algorithm to compute the supervisors . if the specification does not satisfy the properties , we make use of a relaxation of coordination control to compute a sublanguage of the specification for which the supervisors can be computed in a distributed way .