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: _ monadic second - order logic _ ( @xmath6 ) is one of the most expressive logics for which the theories of many interesting classes of structures are still decidable . in particular , the infinite binary tree and many linear orders have a decidable @xmath6-theory @xcite and the same holds for many classes of ( finite or infinite ) structures with bounded _ tree - width _ @xcite . furthermore , for every fixed @xmath6-sentence  @xmath7 and every class  @xmath8 of finite structures with bounded tree - width , there is a linear - time algorithm that checks whether a given structure from  @xmath8 satisfies  @xmath7 @xcite . examples of monadic second - order expressible graph properties are @xmath9-colourability , various types of connectivity , and planarity ( via kuratowski s well - known characterisation by forbidden configurations ) . a variant of monadic second - order logic called _ guarded second - order logic _ ( @xmath10 ) allows quantification not only over sets of elements but also over sets of edges ( i.e. , tuples from the relations )  @xcite . the above mentioned linear - time algorithms can be adapted to this logic . there are tight links between guarded second - order logic and tree - width.08em : every class of ( finite or infinite ) relational structures with a decidable @xmath10-theory has bounded tree - width . this gives a sort of converse to the above mentioned decidability results @xcite . the proof of this result uses a deep theorem of graph minor theory by robertson and seymour.08em : a set of graphs has bounded tree - width if and only if it excludes some planar graph as a minor  @xcite .    to compare the @xmath6-theories or @xmath10-theories of two classes of structures we can use _ monadic second - order transductions , _ a certain kind of interpretations suitable both , for monadic second - order logic and , using a detour via incidence structures , also for guarded second - order logic @xcite .    in the present article we classify classes of finite structures according to their ` combinatorial complexity ' . ( note that we do not consider decidability issues . ) we will consider two ways to measure the complexity of such classes . on the one hand , we can use their tree - width and its variants . on the other hand , we can compare them via transductions . as it turns out , these two approaches are equivalent and they give rise to the same hierarchy . this indicates the robustness of our definitions and their intrinsic interest . other possible hierarchies , based on different logics , will be briefly mentioned in section  [ sect : conclusion ] . let us give more details . an @xmath6-transduction is a transformation of relational structures specified by monadic second - order formulae . as graphs can be represented by relational structures , we can use @xmath6-transductions as transformations between graphs . an @xmath6-transduction is a generalisation of the following kind of operations ( see definition  [ def : transduction]).08em :    \(i ) the definition of a relational structure `` inside '' another one ( in model theory this is called an _ interpretation_).08em ;    \(ii ) the replacement of a structure  @xmath11 by the union of a fixed number of disjoint copies of  @xmath11 , augmented with appropriate relations between the copies.08em ;    \(iii ) the expansion of a given structure  @xmath11 by a fixed number of unary predicates , called _ parameters . _ usually , these predicates are arbitrary subsets of the domain , but we also may have a formula imposing restrictions on them .    because of the possibility to use parameters , a transduction  @xmath1 is a many - valued map in general . ( we may also think of it as non - deterministic . ) each relational structure  @xmath11 has several images @xmath12 depending on the choice of the parameters @xmath13 . if @xmath14 we can consider the tuple  @xmath15 as an _ encoding _ of  @xmath16 in  @xmath11 . the transduction  @xmath1 is the corresponding _ decoding function . _    each transduction  @xmath1 extends in a canonical way to a transformation between classes of structures . if @xmath8  and  @xmath17 are classes of relational structures with @xmath18 , we can think of  @xmath1 as a way of encoding the structures in  @xmath8 by elements of  @xmath17 . for instance , every finite graph can be encoded in a sufficiently large finite square grid ( by a fixed transduction  @xmath1 ) . every finite tree of height at most  @xmath4 ( for fixed  @xmath4 ) can be encoded in a sufficiently long finite path . but it is not the case that all finite trees can be encoded by paths ( by a single transduction ) . the purpose of this article is to classify classes of finite relational structures according to their _ encoding powers . _ we will compare classes @xmath8  and  @xmath17 of structures by the following preorder.08em : @xmath19 we attack the problem of determining the structure of this preorder . since , at the moment , a complete description of this hierarchy seems to be out of reach , we concentrate on a variant where we replace monadic second - order logic by _ guarded second - order logic . _ in this case , the corresponding hierarchy can be described completely . to obtain a corresponding notion of transduction we can not simply change the definition of an @xmath6-transduction to use @xmath10-formulae since the resulting notion of transduction would not yield a reduction between @xmath10-theories , and it even would not be closed under composition . instead , we will take a detour by combining ordinary @xmath6-transductions with a well - known translation between @xmath10 and @xmath6 . this translation is based on _ incidence structures . _ let us first describe this notion for undirected graphs where it is very natural . there are two canonical ways to encode a graph  @xmath20 by a relational structure . we can use its _ adjacency representation _ which is a structure @xmath21 where the domain  @xmath22 consists of all vertices of  @xmath20 and @xmath23 is a binary relation containing all pairs of adjacent vertices . but we also can use the _ incidence representation _ of  @xmath20 . this is the structure @xmath24 where the domain @xmath25 contains both , the vertices and the edges of  @xmath20 , and @xmath26 is the incidence relation between vertices and edges . in a similar way , we can associate with every relational structure  @xmath11 its incidence structure  @xmath27 ( see definition  [ def : incidence structure ] ) where the domain also contains elements for all tuples in some relation of  @xmath11 .    it is shown in @xcite that every @xmath10-formula  @xmath7 talking about some structure  @xmath11 can be translated into an @xmath6-formula talking about the incidence structure  @xmath27 , and vice versa . hence , we can use incidence structures to obtain an analogue  @xmath28 of the preorder  @xmath29 suitable for guarded second - order logic . we set @xmath30 where @xmath31 . the main result of the present article is a complete characterisation of the resulting hierarchy for classes of finite structures . we show that the preorder  @xmath28 is linear of order type @xmath32 . it turns out that every class of finite structures is equivalent to one of the following classes , listed in increasing order of generality.08em :    * trees of height at most  @xmath4 , for each @xmath33.08em ; * paths.08em ; * arbitrary trees ( equivalently , binary trees).08em ; * ( square ) grids . each of these levels can be characterised in terms of tree decompositions . hence , we also obtain a corresponding hierarchy of complexity measures on structures that are compatible with @xmath6-transductions transforming incidence structures . the upper levels of the hierarchy can be determined easily using techniques from graph minor theory developed by robertson and seymour , such as the notions of a minor and a tree decomposition . in particular , we employ two results characterising bounded tree - width and bounded path - width in terms of excluded minors @xcite .    for the lower levels , which consist of classes of bounded path - width , the characterisation is more complicated and requires new results relating tree decompositions and monadic second - order logic .    in sections [ sect : preliminaries ]  and [ sect : mso ] we give basic definitions . section  [ sect : tree decompositions ] collects some known results from graph minor theory . we also introduce a new variant of tree - width and prove some of its basic properties . in section  [ sect : tree decompositions and transductions ] we expound the connections between tree - width and monadic second - order transductions . in section  [ sect : hierarchy ] we introduce the transduction hierarchy and we state our main theorem . its proof is contained in sections [ sect : hierarchy2 ]  and  [ sect : hierarchy3 ] . in the first one , we prove that the hierarchy is strict while , in the second one , we show that it covers every class . the final section  [ sect : conclusion ] contains some extension of our results to other logics and some open problems in this direction . let us fix our notation . we set @xmath34 : = \{0,\dots , n-1\}$ ] and we write @xmath35 for the power set of a set  @xmath36 . we denote tuples  @xmath37 with a bar . the components of  @xmath37 will be @xmath38 where the length  @xmath4 will usually be implicit . we sometimes identify a tuple  @xmath37 with the set of its components . for instance , we write @xmath39 to express that @xmath40 , for some  @xmath41 .    in this article all graphs , trees , and relational structures are finite . we will not repeat this finiteness assumption . a relational structure  @xmath11 is of the form @xmath42 with domain  @xmath43 and relations  @xmath44 . the _ signature _ of such a structure is the set @xmath45 of relation symbols . in some proofs we will also use signatures with constant symbols denoting elements of the domain . we write @xmath46 for the arity of a relation  @xmath47 . for a signature  @xmath48 , we denote by @xmath49 $ ] the class of all @xmath48-structures . we write @xmath50 for the _ disjoint union _ of the structures @xmath11  and  @xmath16 . we mainly consider _ incidence structures . _ these are representations of structures  @xmath11 where we have added new elements to the domain , one for each tuple in the relations of  @xmath11 . [ def : incidence structure ] let @xmath51 be a structure and let @xmath52  be the maximal arity of a relation  @xmath53 . the _ incidence structure _ of  @xmath11 is the structure @xmath54 where we extend the domain  @xmath43 by @xmath55 and the relations are @xmath56 the class of all incidence structures is @xmath57 : = \set { \fraka_{\mathrm{in } } } { \fraka \in { \mathbb{str}}[\sigma ] } $ ] . note that incidence structures are binary ( i.e. , their relations have arity at most  @xmath58 ) . hence , they can be regarded as bipartite labelled directed graphs . one important property of incidence structures is the fact that they are _ sparse , _ i.e. , their relations contain few tuples . let @xmath59 . a structure @xmath60 is _ _ @xmath9-sparse__-sparse hypergraphs _ and _ uniformly @xmath9-sparse hypergraphs . _ what we call @xmath9-sparse is a slight modification of the uniform version of @xcite . ] if , for every subset @xmath61 and all relations  @xmath53 , we have @xmath62    every incidence structure is @xmath63-sparse .    let us fix our notation regarding trees and graphs . a _ directed graph _ is a pair @xmath64 where @xmath22  is the set of _ vertices _ and @xmath65 is the _ edge relation . thus , graphs are by definition simple ( without parallel edges ) . an _ undirected graph _ is a graph where the edge relation @xmath66 is symmetric . when speaking of a _ graph _ we will always mean an undirected one . we regard a _ coloured graph _ as a relational structure @xmath67 with binary relations  @xmath68 and unary relations  @xmath69 that encode the colours of , respectively , the edges and the vertices . we allow graphs whose edges and vertices have several colours . trees play a major role in this article . intuitively , a tree is a directed graph  @xmath70 with a unique vertex  @xmath52 of indegree  @xmath71 , called the _ root _ of  @xmath70 , such that every vertex is reachable from  @xmath52 by a unique directed path . the actual definition we will use is slightly more concrete . it is based on the usual encoding of the vertices of a tree by finite sequences describing the path from the root to the given vertex . in fact , we introduce two notions of a tree.08em : _ order - trees _ and _ successor - trees . _ the latter use the usual edge relation , while the former are equipped with the tree - order instead . let @xmath72  be a set . \(a ) for an ordinal  @xmath73 , we denote by @xmath74 the set of all sequences of elements of  @xmath72 of length less than  @xmath73 . the _ prefix relation _ on  @xmath75 is defined by @xmath76 the infimum of @xmath77  and  @xmath78 with respect to  @xmath79 , i.e. , their longest common prefix , is denoted by @xmath80 . \(b ) a finite prefix closed subset @xmath81 is called a _ tree domain . _ following our intuition that a vertex is represented by the path leading to it , we call the empty sequence  @xmath82 the _ root _ of  @xmath83 and the maximal elements of  @xmath83 its _ leaves . _ the domain of the _ complete @xmath84-ary tree of height  @xmath4 _ is @xmath85 . hence , @xmath86  is the empty tree , @xmath87  the one consisting only of the root , and @xmath88 consists of a root and @xmath84  leaves . given a tree domain  @xmath83 we can define the _ successor relation _ @xmath66 on  @xmath83 by setting @xmath89 in this case we call @xmath78  a _ successor _ of  @xmath77 and @xmath77  the _ predecessor _ of  @xmath78 . a structure of the form @xmath90 ( and every structure isomorphic to it ) is called a _ successor - tree . _    sometimes it is convenient to replace the successor relation  @xmath66 by the tree order  @xmath79 . structures of the form @xmath91 are called _ order - trees . _ a  _ coloured tree _ is the expansion of a ( order- or successor- ) tree by unary predicates  @xmath92 . ( we do not require these predicates to be pairwise disjoint . hence , every vertex may have none , one , or several colours . ) we write @xmath93 for the class of all order - trees @xmath94 with @xmath84  colours . the set of _ leaves _ of a tree  @xmath70 is denoted by @xmath95 . \(c ) let @xmath96 be an order - tree . the _ level _ of an element @xmath97 is the number of vertices @xmath98 with @xmath99 . we denote it by  @xmath100 . the _ height _ of  @xmath70 is the least ordinal  @xmath73 greater than the level of every element of  @xmath83 . hence , the empty tree has height  @xmath71 and the tree with a single vertex has height  @xmath63 . the _ out - degree _ of  @xmath70 is the maximal number of successors of a vertex of  @xmath70 . for successor - trees we define these notions analogously . \(d ) let @xmath70  be a tree and @xmath101  a vertex of  @xmath70 . the _ subtree _ of  @xmath70 _ rooted _ at  @xmath101 is the subtree  @xmath102 consisting of all vertices  @xmath103 with @xmath104 , i.e. , all vertices below  @xmath101 . sometimes it is possible to reduce statements about relational structures to statements about graphs . one way to do so consists in replacing a structure by its _ gaifman graph . _    the _ gaifman graph _ of a structure @xmath60 is the undirected graph @xmath105 with the same domain  @xmath43 and with the edge relation @xmath106 monadic second - order logic ( @xmath6 ) is the extension of first - order logic by set variables and quantifiers over such variables . an important variant of @xmath6 is guarded second - order logic ( @xmath10 ) where one can quantify not only over sets of elements but also over sets of tuples from the relations ( see  @xcite for details ) . hence , guarded second - order logic over a given structure @xmath11 is equivalent to monadic second - order logic over its incidence structure  @xmath27 . + for every @xmath10-sentence  @xmath7 , we can effectively construct an @xmath6-sentence  @xmath107 such that @xmath108    for every @xmath6-sentence  @xmath7 , we can effectively construct a @xmath10-sentence  @xmath107 such that @xmath109    throughout the article we will consistently work with incidence structures , thereby avoiding the treatment of guarded second - order logic . in particular , all formulae are tacitly assumed to be @xmath6-formulae .    besides @xmath6 and @xmath10 we also consider their _ counting extensions _ @xmath110 and @xmath111 . these add predicates of the form @xmath112 to , respectively , @xmath6 and @xmath10 , where @xmath36  is a set variable and @xmath113 are numbers . all of our results for @xmath10 go through also for @xmath111 , i.e. , for @xmath110-transductions between incidence structures . in section  [ sect : conclusion ] we will give a partial characterisation of the hierarchy for @xmath110-transductions of graphs ( not of incidence graphs ) . in this case the availability of counting predicates does make a difference .    to state the composition theorem below it is of advantage to work with a variant of @xmath6 without first - order variables . this variant has atomic formulae of the form @xmath114 and @xmath115 , for set variables @xmath116 , where a formula of the form  @xmath115 states that there are elements @xmath117 such that the tuple  @xmath37 is in  @xmath47 . note that every general monadic second - order formula with first - order variables can be brought into this restricted form by replacing all first - order variables by set variables and adding the condition that these sets are singletons . whenever we speak of @xmath6 we will have this version in mind . in particular , the following definition of the rank of a formula is based on this variant . when writing down concrete formulae , on the other hand , we will allow the use of first - order variables to improve readability . we regard every such formula as an abbreviation of a formula of the restricted form . similarly , when we use structures with constants we actually regard each constant as a singleton set . \(a ) the _ rank _ @xmath118 of a formula  @xmath7 is the nesting depth of quantifiers in  @xmath7 . formulae of rank  @xmath71 are called _ quantifier - free . _    \(b ) the _ monadic theory of rank  @xmath84 _ of a structure  @xmath11 is @xmath119 for a tuple  @xmath37 of elements of  @xmath11 , we also consider the monadic theory @xmath120 of the expansion @xmath121 . we use the term ` rank ' instead of the more natural ` quantifier rank ' since in section  [ sect : conclusion ] below we will consider @xmath110 where the notion of rank has to be adapted for our results to go through .    in order to compare the monadic theories of two classes of structures we employ @xmath6-transductions . to simplify the definition we introduce three simple operations and we obtain @xmath6-transductions as compositions of these . [ def : transduction ] ( a ) let @xmath122 be a natural number . the operation @xmath123 maps a structure  @xmath11 to the expansion @xmath124 of the disjoint union of @xmath9  copies of  @xmath11 by the following relations . denoting the copy of an element @xmath125 in the @xmath41-th component of @xmath126 by the pair @xmath127 , we define @xmath128 for @xmath129 , we set @xmath130 . \(b ) for @xmath131 , we define the operation @xmath132 that maps a structure  @xmath11 to all possible expansions by @xmath84  unary predicates @xmath133 . note that this operation is many - valued and that @xmath134 is just the identity . basic @xmath6-transduction _ is a partial operation  @xmath1 on relational structures described by a list @xmath135 of @xmath6-formulae called the _ definition scheme _ of  @xmath1 . given a structure  @xmath11 that satisfies the formula  @xmath136 the operation  @xmath1 produces the structure @xmath137 where @xmath138 if @xmath139 then @xmath140 remains undefined . \(d ) a _ @xmath9-copying @xmath6-transduction _ @xmath1 is a ( many - valued ) operation on relational structures of the form @xmath141 where @xmath142  is a basic @xmath6-transduction . when the value of  @xmath9 does not matter , we will simply speak of a _ transduction . _ note that , due to  @xmath132 , a structure can be mapped to several structures by a transduction . consequently , we consider @xmath140 as the _ set _ of possible values @xmath143 where @xmath92  ranges over all @xmath84-tuples of subsets of  @xmath43 .    for a class  @xmath8 , we set @xmath144    \(a ) the expansion by @xmath84  unary predicates corresponds , in the terminology of @xcite , to using @xmath84  _ parameters . _ we will use this terminology , for instance , in the proof of theorem  [ thm : interpretable implies tree decomposable ] . \(b ) note that every basic @xmath6-transduction is a @xmath63-copying @xmath6-transduction without parameters . [ exam : gf interpretable ] ( a ) let @xmath48  be a signature and let @xmath52  be the maximal arity of a relation in  @xmath48 . the operation mapping an incidence structure @xmath145 $ ] to the structure @xmath146 is a @xmath9-copying @xmath6-transduction where @xmath147 , for @xmath148 , and @xmath129 , for @xmath149 . \(b ) for every fixed number  @xmath33 , we describe a transduction  @xmath1 transforming a path  @xmath150 of length  @xmath151 into the class of all trees of height  @xmath4 with @xmath152 vertices . we can encode a tree  @xmath83 of height  @xmath4 with @xmath84  vertices as a finite word  @xmath153 of length  @xmath84 over the alphabet  @xmath34 $ ] as follows . let @xmath154 be the enumeration of the vertices of  @xmath83 in lexicographic order , and let @xmath155  be the level of  @xmath156 . we encode  @xmath83 by the word @xmath157 . a transduction can recover  @xmath83 from  @xmath153 as follows . each position in  @xmath153 corresponds to a vertex . the predecessor of the @xmath41-th vertex  @xmath101 is the maximal vertex to the left of  @xmath101 whose label is less than  @xmath155 . clearly , this predecessor relation is definable in monadic second - order logic . the two most important properties of @xmath6-transductions are summarised in the following lemmas . [ lem : transductions are comorphisms ] let @xmath1  be a transduction . for every @xmath6-sentence  @xmath7 , there exists an @xmath6-sentence  @xmath158 such that , for all structures  @xmath11 , @xmath159 furthermore , if @xmath1  is quantifier - free , then the rank of  @xmath158 is no larger than that of  @xmath7 . [ cor : transductions operate on theories ] for every quantifier - free transduction  @xmath1 and every @xmath131 , there exists a function  @xmath160 on monadic theories of rank  @xmath84 such that @xmath161    for all transductions @xmath162 there exists a transduction  @xmath163 such that @xmath164 .    as a further example note that we can use transductions to translate between order - trees and successor - trees . there exists a transduction  @xmath1 mapping an order - tree to the corresponding successor - tree . there exists a transduction  @xmath165 mapping a successor - tree to the corresponding order - tree . similarly there are transductions translating between a structure and its incidence structure .    for every signature  @xmath48 , there exists a transduction  @xmath1 such that @xmath166 , for all @xmath167 $ ] . the converse statement is a much deeper result and requires the structure in question to be @xmath9-sparse for some fixed  @xmath9 . for every signature  @xmath48 and all numbers @xmath59 , there exists an @xmath6-transduction  @xmath1 such that @xmath168 , for all @xmath9-sparse structures @xmath167 $ ] . we have seen in lemma  [ lem : transductions are comorphisms ] that transductions relate the monadic theories of two structures . we also need techniques to relate the monadic theory of a structure to those of its substructures . the disjoint union operation can frequently be used for this purpose ( for a proof of the following theorem see , e.g. , theorem 7.11 of  @xcite , or  @xcite ) . [ thm : composition for unions ] let @xmath48  and  @xmath169 be relational signatures with constants . for every @xmath131 , there exists a ( computable ) binary operation  @xmath170 on monadic theories of rank  @xmath84 such that @xmath171 for all @xmath48-structures  @xmath11 and @xmath169-structures  @xmath16 . below we will mainly make use of the following corollary . [ lem : composition for trees ] let @xmath70  be an order - tree and @xmath97 a vertex . suppose that @xmath172  is the order - tree obtained from  @xmath70 by replacing the subtree  @xmath102 by some tree  @xmath173 . let @xmath174  be a tuple of vertices of  @xmath70 with @xmath175 , for all  @xmath41 . if @xmath37  are vertices of  @xmath102 and @xmath176  are vertices of  @xmath173 such that @xmath177 then it follows that @xmath178    let @xmath179  be the tree obtained from  @xmath70 by replacing the subtree  @xmath102 by a single vertex  @xmath153 . we define the following auxiliary predicates.08em : @xmath180 we construct a quantifier - free transduction  @xmath1 such that @xmath181 if @xmath160  is the function from corollary  [ cor : transductions operate on theories ] and @xmath170  the operation from theorem  [ thm : composition for unions ] , it follows that @xmath182 as desired . hence , it remains to define  @xmath1 . let @xmath183 be the signature of @xmath184 , and @xmath185 the signature of @xmath186 and @xmath187 . for @xmath1  we can use the basic @xmath6-transduction consisting of the following formulae.08em : @xmath188 -- some properties of the transduction hierarchy , which we will introduce in section  [ sect : hierarchy ] below , can be deduced from results about graph minors . \(a ) let @xmath189 be an undirected graph and @xmath190 a set of edges . we denote by @xmath191  the reflexive and transitive closure of  @xmath192 . note that @xmath191  is an equivalence relation . the graph @xmath193 is obtained by contracting all edges in  @xmath192 . formally , we have @xmath194 where @xmath195 is the set of equivalence classes and @xmath196  contains an edge between classes @xmath197 $ ] and @xmath198 $ ] if and only if @xmath197 \neq [ y]$ ] and there are representatives @xmath199 $ ] and @xmath200 $ ] with @xmath201 . \(b ) a _ minor _ of a graph  @xmath20 is a graph that can be obtained from  @xmath20 by first deleting some vertices and edges and then contracting some of the remaining edges . for a class  @xmath8 of graphs , we denote by @xmath202 the class of all minors of graphs in  @xmath8 . one central tool in graph minor theory is the notion of a tree decomposition and the related complexity measures called tree - width and path - width . these notions extend in a natural way to relational structures . let @xmath60 be a structure . \(a ) a _ tree decomposition _ of  @xmath11 is a family @xmath203 of ( possibly empty ) subsets @xmath204 indexed by a rooted tree  @xmath83 such that    * for every element @xmath125 , the set @xmath205 is nonempty and connected in  @xmath83.08em ; * for every tuple @xmath206 , there is some index @xmath97 with @xmath207 . we call the sets  @xmath208 the _ components _ of the decomposition , and @xmath83  is its _ underlying tree . _    the _ height _ of a tree decomposition @xmath203 is the height of  @xmath83 , while its _ width _ is the number @xmath209    \(b ) the _ tree - width _ @xmath210 of  @xmath11 is the minimal width of a tree decomposition of  @xmath11 . \(c ) the _ path - width _ @xmath211 of  @xmath11 is the minimal width of a tree decomposition of  @xmath11 where the underlying tree is a path . \(d ) the _ @xmath4-depth tree - width _ @xmath212 of  @xmath11 is the minimal width of a tree decomposition of  @xmath11 whose underlying tree has height at most  @xmath4 . \(e ) for a class  @xmath8 of structures , we define @xmath213 as the supremum of @xmath210 , for @xmath214 , and similarly for @xmath215 and @xmath216 . \(a ) the @xmath4-depth tree - width of a graph  @xmath20 is related to its _ tree - depth _ @xmath217 as introduced by neetil and ossona de mendez @xcite . the tree - depth of a graph  @xmath20 is the least number  @xmath4 such that some orientation of  @xmath20 is a subgraph of some order - tree of height  @xmath4 . for a graph  @xmath20 , it follows that    * @xmath218 implies @xmath219.08em ; * @xmath220 implies @xmath221 . these facts are easy to establish . we will not need them in the following . \(b ) there are some simple relations between @xmath4-depth tree - width , path - width , and tree - width . for every graph  @xmath20 , we have @xmath222 ( let us sketch the proof of the last inequality.08em : let @xmath223 be a tree decomposition of  @xmath20 of height  @xmath4 and width @xmath224 . as the components of a path decomposition of  @xmath20 we take all sets of the form @xmath225 , where @xmath226 is a path from the root  @xmath227 to some leaf  @xmath228 of  @xmath83 . )    the next lemma shows that most questions regarding tree decompositions of a structure can be reduced to the corresponding questions about its gaifman graph . for many of the following results it is therefore sufficient to consider graphs . let @xmath11  be a structure . a family @xmath223 is a tree decomposition of  @xmath11 if and only if it is a tree decomposition of @xmath229 . @xmath230 is immediate . @xmath231 follows from the fact that every tree decomposition of a clique has one component  @xmath208 containing the whole clique . this implies that , for every clique  @xmath232 in @xmath229 induced by some tuple @xmath206 , there is some vertex @xmath97 with @xmath233 . hence , every tuple @xmath206 is contained in some component  @xmath208 .    in order to separate the higher classes of the hierarchy , we shall employ two deep results of robertson and seymour about excluded minors . [ thm : excluded tree theorem ] for each tree  @xmath70 , there exists a number @xmath59 such that @xmath234    [ thm : excluded grid theorem ] for each planar graph  @xmath235 , there exists a number @xmath59 such that @xmath236    a class of graphs has bounded path - width if and only if it excludes some tree as a minor . a class of graphs has bounded tree - width if and only if it excludes some planar graph as a minor . we also need a variant of these theorems for @xmath4-depth tree - width . the next lemma contains the main technical argument . suppose that @xmath20  is a graph that does not contain a path of length  @xmath151 . then @xmath20  has a tree decomposition of height at most  @xmath151 and width at most @xmath237 . let @xmath238 be a depth - first spanning order - tree of  @xmath20 , i.e. , a spanning tree such that , for every edge @xmath239 of  @xmath20 we have @xmath240 or @xmath104 ( for details see , e.g. , @xcite where such spanning trees are called _ normal _ ) . we define a tree decomposition @xmath223 of  @xmath20 by setting @xmath241 since @xmath83  is depth - first , it follows that every edge @xmath239 of  @xmath20 is contained in some component  @xmath242 where @xmath153  is the maximum of @xmath103  and  @xmath101 . the height of the tree  @xmath83 can be at most  @xmath151 since @xmath20  contains no path of length  @xmath151 . furthermore , we have @xmath243 . hence , the width of the tree decomposition is at most @xmath237 . [ thm : excluded path theorem ] for each path  @xmath150 , there exist numbers @xmath244 such that @xmath245    suppose that @xmath246 and let @xmath151  be the length of  @xmath150 . then the preceding lemma implies that @xmath247 . a class of graphs has bounded @xmath4-depth tree - width , for some  @xmath4 , if and only if it excludes some path as a minor ( equivalently , as a subgraph ) . a class of graphs has bounded tree - depth if and only if it excludes some path as a minor ( equivalently , as a subgraph ) . we can also compute a bound on the @xmath4-depth tree - width in terms of the @xmath248-depth tree - width . it will be needed in the proof of theorem  [ thm : covering for lower part ] below . we say that the tree @xmath249 can be _ embedded _ into a tree  @xmath91 if there exists an order - preserving injective mapping @xmath250 , i.e. , if @xmath251 , regarded as relational structure , is isomorphic to an induced substructure of @xmath238 . for instance , we have an embedding        as indicated by the labels . if @xmath252  can be embedded in  @xmath83 then @xmath252  is isomorphic to a minor of  @xmath83 , when we consider @xmath252  and  @xmath83 as graphs . let @xmath203 be a tree decomposition and let @xmath253  be a set of edges of ( the successor - tree corresponding to )  @xmath83 . the tree decomposition @xmath254 obtained by _ contracting _ the edges in  @xmath253 is @xmath255})_{[v ] \in t / f}\,,\end{aligned}\ ] ] where @xmath256 } : = \bigcup_{u \in [ v ] } u_u$ ] . [ lem : bound on twd - n ] let @xmath20  be a graph and let @xmath257 be a tree decomposition of  @xmath20 of width  @xmath9 and height at most @xmath258 . if @xmath131 is some number such that the tree @xmath259 can not be embedded into  @xmath83 , then @xmath260 . we construct a tree decomposition  @xmath261 of height at most  @xmath4 and width at most @xmath262 as follows . let @xmath263 be the minimal ( w.r.t . @xmath264 ) set of vertices that contains    * every leaf of  @xmath83 at level  @xmath4 and * every vertex that has at least @xmath84  successors in  @xmath265 . since @xmath259 can not be embedded into  @xmath83 it follows that @xmath265  does not contain the root of  @xmath83 . let @xmath253  be the set of all edges of  @xmath83 linking a vertex in @xmath266 to a vertex in  @xmath265 . by definition of  @xmath265 it follows that ( i )  every vertex of  @xmath83 has less than  @xmath84 @xmath253-successors.08em ; ( ii )  every path of  @xmath83 from the root to some leaf on level  @xmath4 contains at least one edge from  @xmath253.08em ; and ( iii )  no such path contains two consecutive edges from  @xmath253 . the decomposition @xmath267 obtained by contracting all edges in  @xmath253 has width at most @xmath268 furthermore , the height of the underlying tree is at most  @xmath4 . [ cor : bound on twd - n ] let @xmath8  be a class such that @xmath269 and let @xmath131 . if every structure @xmath214 has a tree decomposition @xmath223 of width  @xmath9 and height at most @xmath258 such that the tree @xmath259 can not be embedded into  @xmath83 , then @xmath270 . we conclude this section with a lemma that will be useful when constructing transductions  @xmath271 that transform a structure into their tree decompositions of height  @xmath4 . our construction works for all tree decompositions that are _ strict _ in the following sense . [ def : strict tree decomposition ] let @xmath223 be a tree decomposition of a structure  @xmath11 . we define a function @xmath272 by @xmath273 note that @xmath274  is well - defined since , by the definition of a tree decomposition , there is at least one @xmath97 such that @xmath275 .    for @xmath97 , we set @xmath276    the tree decomposition @xmath277 is _ strict _ if , for every @xmath97 ,    * @xmath278 ( equivalently , @xmath279 , where @xmath103  is the predecessor of  @xmath101 ) and * if @xmath101  is not the root of  @xmath83 , then the subgraph of @xmath229 induced by the set @xmath280 is connected . we conclude this section by a result implying that , for our purposes , it will be sufficient to consider only strict tree decompositions .    [ lem : existence of strict tree decompositions ] let @xmath20  be a graph . for every tree decomposition @xmath223 of  @xmath20 , there exists a strict tree decomposition @xmath281 of  @xmath20 whose width and height are at most those of @xmath223 .    by induction on @xmath33 , we will construct a sequence @xmath282 of tree decompositions such that @xmath283  is connected , for every @xmath284 with level @xmath285 . ( recall that @xmath100 denotes the level of  @xmath101 , and the root is the only vertex of level  @xmath71 . ) furthermore , the restriction of  @xmath286 to the set of vertices of level at most  @xmath4 will coincide with the corresponding restriction of  @xmath287 , and we have @xmath288 , for all @xmath289 with level @xmath290 . it will follow that the sequence has a limit @xmath291 where @xmath292    we start the construction with @xmath293 and @xmath294 . suppose that we have already defined @xmath282 . for every vertex @xmath284 of level @xmath295 we modify the tree decomposition as follows . let @xmath296 be an enumeration of the connected components of  @xmath283 . we replace in  @xmath286 the subtree rooted at  @xmath101 by @xmath84  copies @xmath297 of the subtree , all attached to the predecessor of  @xmath101 . for @xmath298 we define @xmath299 . we can do these modifications for all vertices of level @xmath258 simultaneously . let @xmath300 be the resulting tree decomposition . the limit @xmath291 of this sequence satisfies the connectedness requirement of a strict tree decomposition . to also satisfy the other condition we proceed as follows let @xmath253  be the set of all edges @xmath239 of  @xmath301 such that @xmath302 . ( note that this implies @xmath303 . ) we construct the tree decomposition @xmath281 by contracting all edges in  @xmath253 . the details and the remaining verifications are left to the reader . in this section we relate the material presented in the preceding one to monadic second - order transductions . let us start by showing that there is a transduction computing the minors of a graph . [ lem : minors interpretable ] there exists a transduction  @xmath1 such that @xmath304 , for every graph  @xmath20 .    a minor  @xmath305 of  @xmath20 is obtained by deleting vertices , deleting edges , and contracting edges . hence , we can encode  @xmath305 by four sets.08em : the set of vertices we delete , the set of edges we delete , the set of edges we contract , and a set of vertices containing one representative of each contracted subgraph of  @xmath20 ( these vertices serve as vertices of the resulting graph  @xmath305 ) . with the help of these parameters we can define  @xmath305 inside of  @xmath306 by @xmath6-formulae . there is a close relationship between tree decompositions and transductions . [ lem : tree decomposable implies interpretable ] for every signature  @xmath48 and every number @xmath59 , there exists a transduction @xmath307 $ ] that maps an order - tree  @xmath83 to the class of all incidence structures  @xmath27 such that the corresponding @xmath48-structure  @xmath11 has a tree decomposition of width at most  @xmath9 with underlying tree  @xmath83 . suppose that @xmath11  is a structure which has a tree decomposition @xmath223 of width  @xmath9 . we prove that @xmath11  can be defined from a colouring of  @xmath83 where the number of colours depends only on @xmath48  and  @xmath9 . let @xmath308 be an enumeration of all @xmath48-structures whose domain is a subset of @xmath309 $ ] . for each @xmath97 , let @xmath310  be the substructure of  @xmath11 induced by  @xmath208 . it follows that , for every @xmath97 , we can find some index @xmath311 such that @xmath312 . let @xmath313 be the corresponding isomorphism . furthermore , we associate with each edge @xmath239 of  @xmath83 the binary relation @xmath314 \times [ k+1]\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ]    we can recover  @xmath11 from  @xmath83 with the help of the vertex colouring  @xmath315 and the edge colouring  @xmath47 . we form the disjoint union of all structures @xmath316 , for @xmath97 , and we identify two elements @xmath317 and @xmath318 if @xmath239 is an edge of  @xmath83 such that @xmath319 . this can be performed by an @xmath4-copying @xmath6-transduction where @xmath4  is the maximal size of the structures @xmath320 , @xmath321 . we have just seen that we can map a class of trees to a class of structures with these trees as tree decompositions . conversely , if we only consider strict tree decompositions , we can define a transduction mapping a class of structures to the corresponding class of trees . recall the function @xmath272 from definition  [ def : strict tree decomposition ] . that assigns to an element @xmath125 the minimal index @xmath97 such that @xmath275 . [ prop : strict tree decompositions definable ] for each number @xmath33 , there exists an @xmath6-formula @xmath322 such that , for every strict tree decomposition @xmath203 of a graph  @xmath20 of height at most  @xmath4 , there are sets @xmath323 such that @xmath324    given  @xmath72 we use the sets @xmath325 of all elements that first appear at level  @xmath41 of the tree . in particular , @xmath326 is the root component of the tree decomposition . for @xmath327 , let @xmath328  be the subgraph of  @xmath20 induced by @xmath329 . for @xmath330 and @xmath331 we define @xmath332 clearly , the relation  @xmath79 is @xmath6-definable with the help of the parameters  @xmath333 . we claim that , for @xmath334 , we have @xmath335    @xmath231 suppose that @xmath336 . then @xmath337 . furthermore , @xmath338 is connected since @xmath72  is strict . hence , @xmath338 is a connected component of @xmath339 containing both @xmath340  and  @xmath341 . since @xmath342 it follows that @xmath343 . @xmath230 suppose that @xmath343 . then there exists an undirected path  @xmath344 in  @xmath345 connecting @xmath340  and  @xmath341 . since @xmath346 , for all @xmath347 such that @xmath348 , it follows that @xmath344  is contained in some @xmath280 such that @xmath349 . since @xmath340  is a vertex of  @xmath344 we must have @xmath350 . furthermore , @xmath337 since @xmath341  is also a vertex of  @xmath344 . this implies that @xmath336 . [ thm : strict tree decompositions can be computed by a transduction ] for each constant @xmath33 , there exists a transduction  @xmath271 mapping a graph  @xmath20 to the class of all ( underlying trees of ) strict tree decompositions of  @xmath20 of height at most  @xmath4 . let @xmath203 be a strict tree decomposition of  @xmath20 , and let @xmath351 be the formula from proposition  [ prop : strict tree decompositions definable ] with parameters @xmath323 . we can define the tree  @xmath83 underlying  @xmath72 as follows.08em :    * its root is any element of  @xmath326 . * for the other vertices of  @xmath83 , we choose one vertex in each @xmath352-class different from  @xmath353 . note that @xmath352  is definable with the help of  @xmath354 . * the ordering of  @xmath83 is defined by  @xmath354 . hence , we obtain a transduction with parameters  @xmath333 that transforms a graph into a ` candidate ' tree decomposition . via a backwards translation we can write down a formula stating that the candidate given by the parameters  @xmath333 corresponds to an actual strict tree decomposition . we omit the details which are standard for this type of construction . in lemma  [ lem : tree decomposable implies interpretable ] we have seen how to obtain classes of bounded tree - width from classes of trees . conversely , it is the case that every class obtained from a class of trees via a transduction has a bounded tree - width . [ thm : interpretable implies tree decomposable ] for every transduction @xmath355 $ ] , there exists a number @xmath59 such that , for each @xmath84-coloured tree  @xmath70 with image @xmath356 , the structure @xmath11  has a tree decomposition of width at most  @xmath9 where the underlying tree is  @xmath70 . \(a ) courcelle and engelfriet  @xcite have shown that an incidence structure  @xmath27 obtained via a transduction  @xmath1 from an @xmath84-coloured tree  @xmath70 has bounded tree - width . theorem  [ thm : interpretable implies tree decomposable ] strengthens this result by proving that , if @xmath27  is the image of a tree  @xmath70 , then we can use the same tree  @xmath70 as the tree underlying a tree decomposition of the given width . \(b ) lapoire has announced in  @xcite a result somewhat related to theorem  [ thm : strict tree decompositions can be computed by a transduction ] . he claims that , for every @xmath59 , there exists a transduction that transforms a given graph  @xmath20 of tree - width at most  @xmath9 to a coloured tree ( like in the proof of lemma  [ lem : tree decomposable implies interpretable ] ) that encodes some tree decomposition of  @xmath20 of width at most  @xmath9 . our result is less ambitious in the sense that we only consider tree decompositions of a fixed height . this enables us to give a precise description of which tree decompositions ( the strict ones ) our transduction returns . note that one can show that , for @xmath122 , there is no such transduction that would return _ all _ tree decompositions of  @xmath20 of width at most  @xmath9 . we split the proof into several lemmas . as a technical tool we introduce a second kind of hierarchical decompositions of structures and a corresponding notion of width . to simplify the definition we will only consider incidence structures . let @xmath357 be an incidence structure . \(a ) a _ partition refinement _ of  @xmath27 is a family @xmath358 of pairs consisting of a subset @xmath359 and an equivalence relation  @xmath360 on  @xmath361 with the following properties.08em :    * the index set  @xmath83 is a tree . * for the root  @xmath82 , we have @xmath362 * for every internal vertex ( i.e. , non - leaf ) @xmath98 with successors @xmath363 , the sets @xmath364 form a partition of  @xmath365 . * @xmath366 , for every leaf @xmath98 . * @xmath367 and @xmath240 implies @xmath368 . * if @xmath103  is an internal vertex of  @xmath83 , @xmath369 successors of  @xmath103 , not necessarily distinct , and @xmath370 , @xmath371 elements , then @xmath368 implies either @xmath372    note that it follows that , for every element @xmath373 , there is some leaf @xmath98 such that @xmath374 . \(b ) the _ width _ of a partition refinement @xmath358 is the maximum number of equivalence classes realised in some component  @xmath361.08em : @xmath375 the _ partition - width _ of the structure  @xmath27 is the minimal width of a partition refinement of  @xmath27 . the notion of a partition refinement and of partition - width are adaptations of definitions from @xcite . up to a factor of  @xmath58 , the partition - width of an incidence structure and its clique - width coincide . let @xmath376 be a structure with domain @xmath377 and a ternary relation @xmath378 its incidence structure is @xmath379 with @xmath380 . we obtain a partition refinement        where we have indicated the partition into @xmath360-classes by vertical bars . this partition refinement has width  @xmath381 . [ lem : tree decomposition bounded by partition width ] for every partition refinement @xmath358 of an incidence structure @xmath382 , there exists a tree decomposition @xmath203 of  @xmath11 with the same underlying tree  @xmath83 such that @xmath383    let @xmath384 be the function assigning to every @xmath373 the unique leaf @xmath385 of  @xmath83 such that @xmath386 . we claim that the desired tree decomposition @xmath387 of  @xmath11 is given by @xmath388 note that the connectedness condition holds since @xmath389 implies that @xmath101  belongs to precisely those components  @xmath390 such that  @xmath103 lies on the path from  @xmath391 to  @xmath392 . it remains to prove that @xmath393 . if @xmath394 , for some @xmath395 , then @xmath396 consists of the components of  @xmath174 . hence , @xmath397 therefore , we may assume that @xmath398 $ ] . let @xmath399_u : = \set { y \in w_u } { y \approx_u x } \end{aligned}\ ] ] denote the @xmath400-class of  @xmath77 . we prove the following bounds . @xmath401_u } = 1 $ ] , for all @xmath402 . @xmath401_u \cap u_u } \leq 2 $ ] , for all @xmath403 . @xmath404 .    since @xmath405 it then follows that @xmath406 . \(1 ) let @xmath402 . there is some tuple @xmath407 and some index  @xmath41 such that @xmath408 and @xmath409 . we have @xmath410 , for every @xmath411 such that @xmath412 . since @xmath77  is the only such element it follows that @xmath197_u = \{x\}$ ] . \(2 ) let @xmath403 . there is some tuple @xmath407 and some  @xmath41 such that @xmath408 and @xmath413 . let @xmath101  be the successor of  @xmath103 such that @xmath414 . we have @xmath410 , for all @xmath415 such that @xmath412 . hence , @xmath197_u \smallsetminus w_v = \{x\}$ ] . suppose that there is some element @xmath416_u \cap w_v \cap u_u$ ] . by definition of  @xmath390 there is some tuple  @xmath417 and some  @xmath418 such that @xmath419 and @xmath420 . as above it follows that @xmath197_u \cap w_v = \{y\}$ ] . consequently , we have @xmath401_u \cap u_u } \leq 2 $ ] . \(3 ) let @xmath421 and consider some tuple @xmath407 such that @xmath408 and @xmath422 . set @xmath423 for @xmath424 , it follows that @xmath425 furthermore , we obviously have @xmath426 . it follows that @xmath427  contains at most @xmath428 vertices . [ lem : partition width of simple tree interpretations ] let @xmath355 $ ] be a basic @xmath6-transduction such that , for every @xmath84-coloured order - tree  @xmath70 with image @xmath356 , we have @xmath429 then there exists a number @xmath33 such that , for every order - tree  @xmath70 , we can find a partition refinement @xmath430 of @xmath431 of width at most  @xmath4 . let @xmath432 be the definition scheme of  @xmath1 , and let @xmath433  be the maximal rank of these formulae . given  @xmath70 we define the desired partition refinement @xmath434 by setting @xmath435 \prefixtext{and }    & x \approx_u y \quad\defiff\quad    \begin{aligned}[t ]      & { \mathrm{mth}}_h(\frakt_v , x ) = { \mathrm{mth}}_h(\frakt_w , y)\ , , \\      & \text{where $ v , w$ are the successors of $ u$ with }       x \in w_v \text { and } y \in w_w\ , .    \end{aligned}\end{aligned}\ ] ] ( if @xmath103  is a leaf of  @xmath83 then @xmath374 and we take the equality relation for  @xmath400 . ) note that the index of  @xmath360 is finite and that it only depends on  @xmath433 and not on the input tree  @xmath70 . it remains to show that @xmath436  is actually a partition refinement . first , let us prove that @xmath367 and @xmath240 implies @xmath368 . it is sufficient to consider the case that @xmath103  is the predecessor of  @xmath101 . then the general case follows by induction . hence , suppose that @xmath101  is a successor of  @xmath103 , that @xmath437 are successors of  @xmath101 , and that @xmath438 are leaves with @xmath439 and @xmath440 such that @xmath367 . then we have @xmath441 which , by lemma  [ lem : composition for trees ] , implies that @xmath442 consequently , we have @xmath368 .    we also have to show that the incidence relation is invariant under  @xmath400 . let @xmath369  be successors of  @xmath103 and suppose that @xmath438 are leaves with @xmath443 and @xmath444 such that @xmath368 . we distinguish two cases . suppose that @xmath445 and let @xmath446 be an edge . since @xmath447 it follows that @xmath448 hence , @xmath408 iff @xmath410 . now , suppose that @xmath449 and let @xmath450 be an element . since @xmath447 it follows that @xmath451 hence , @xmath452 iff @xmath453 . \(1 ) first , suppose that @xmath355 $ ] is a basic @xmath6-transduction such that , for every @xmath84-coloured order - tree @xmath454 with image @xmath356 , we have @xmath429 it follows by lemma  [ lem : partition width of simple tree interpretations ] that there is a number @xmath455 such that , for every tree  @xmath70 , we can find a partition refinement of @xmath356 with underlying tree  @xmath70 whose width is at most  @xmath153 . by lemma  [ lem : tree decomposition bounded by partition width ] it follows that @xmath11  has a tree decomposition @xmath223 with underlying tree  @xmath70 and whose width is less than @xmath456 . \(2 ) if @xmath1  is a basic @xmath6-transduction such that @xmath457 then we can argue similarly . let @xmath458  be the @xmath6-transduction mapping  @xmath70 to the structure obtained from @xmath431 by adding one isolated element for every leaf of  @xmath70 that does not correspond to an element of  @xmath431 . then @xmath458  is of the form considered in  ( 1 ) and we obtain a tree decomposition  @xmath223 of @xmath459 . deleting from every component  @xmath208 all elements not in  @xmath431 we obtain the desired tree decomposition of  @xmath431 . \(3 ) suppose that @xmath1  is a non - copying @xmath6-transduction as in  ( 2 ) but with  @xmath460 parameters . we can regard  @xmath1 as a basic @xmath6-transduction @xmath461 $ ] . by ( 2 ) it follows that , for every value of the parameters  @xmath92 , the structure @xmath462 has a tree decomposition of the required form . \(4 ) finally , consider the general case . suppose that @xmath1  is @xmath151-copying . given  @xmath70 let @xmath463  be the tree obtained from  @xmath70 by adding  @xmath151 new successors to every vertex of  @xmath70 . formally , suppose that @xmath81 , for some finite set  @xmath72 . w.l.o.g . we may assume that @xmath464 = \emptyset$ ] . we define the domain @xmath465)^{<\omega}$ ] of  @xmath463 by @xmath466)\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] furthermore , we add new colour predicates @xmath467\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] note that every element of @xmath431 is of the form @xmath468 where @xmath469 $ ] and @xmath97 . hence , each such element corresponds to a leaf @xmath470 \subseteq t^+$ ] . using the parameters  @xmath471 we can construct a basic @xmath6-transduction @xmath472 $ ] satisfying the conditions of  ( 3 ) such that @xmath473 . by  ( 3 ) , we obtain a tree decomposition @xmath474 of @xmath473 . let @xmath475 be the tree decomposition obtained from  @xmath476 by contracting every edge leading to a leaf in @xmath477 . then we have @xmath478 -- the focus of our investigation lies on the following preorder on classes of structures which compares their ` encoding powers ' with respect to @xmath6-transductions . our main result is a complete description of the hierarchy induced by this preorder . it will be given in theorem  [ thm : hierarchy ] . let @xmath479 . we define the following relations . @xmath480 if there exists a transduction  @xmath1 such that @xmath18 . @xmath481 if @xmath480 and @xmath482 . @xmath483 if @xmath480 and @xmath484 . @xmath485 if @xmath481 and there is no class  @xmath486 with @xmath487 . @xmath488 if @xmath489 . the relations @xmath490 , @xmath491 , and @xmath492 are defined analogously to @xmath493 , @xmath494 , @xmath495 by replacing  @xmath29 everywhere by  @xmath28 . the _ transduction hierarchy _ is the hierarchy of classes @xmath496 induced by the relation  @xmath28 .    as the class of transductions is closed under composition , it follows that the relation  @xmath28 is a preorder , i.e. , it is reflexive and transitive . @xmath28  is a preorder on @xmath497 . we consider the following subclasses of @xmath498 $ ] . ( all trees below are considered to be successor - trees . ) @xmath499 is the set of all complete @xmath84-ary trees of height  @xmath4 . @xmath500 is the class of all binary trees . @xmath501 is the class of all trees . @xmath502  is the class of all paths . @xmath503  is the class of all rectangular grids . the following description of the transduction hierarchy is the main result of the present paper . [ thm : hierarchy ] we have the following hierarchy.08em : @xmath504 for every signature  @xmath48 , every class @xmath505 $ ] is @xmath491-equivalent to some class in this hierarchy .    there is a lot of flexibility in the choice of representatives for the various levels . for instance , we could replace  @xmath506 by the class of _ all _ trees of height at most  @xmath4 , @xmath501 by @xmath500 or @xmath507 , and @xmath503  by the class of square grids . it is straightforward to show that the above classes form an increasing chain . the hard part is to prove that the chain is strictly increasing and that there are no further classes . we have @xmath508    in the example before lemma  [ lem : transductions are comorphisms ] , we have constructed transductions  @xmath271 such that @xmath509 . hence , @xmath510 . the remaining assertions follow from the observation that , by lemma  [ lem : minors interpretable ] , @xmath511 implies @xmath488 . let us collect some easy properties of the hierarchy . our first result states that @xmath503  is a representative of the top level of the transduction hierarchy . [ lem : g is top ] @xmath49 \sqsubseteq_{\mathrm{in}}\calg$ ]    recall that the @xmath512 grid is the undirected graph @xmath189 with vertices @xmath513 \times [ n]$ ] and edge relation @xmath514 before encoding arbitrary structures in such grids we describe a transduction mapping  @xmath20 to its directed variant @xmath515 where @xmath516 this can be done with the help of the parameters @xmath517 where @xmath518 then @xmath519 it is easy to write down a formula checking that the parameters @xmath520  and  @xmath521 are correctly chosen ( see , e.g. , @xcite ) .    to show that @xmath49 \sqsubseteq_{\mathrm{in}}\calg$ ] , suppose that @xmath167 $ ] is a structure with @xmath522 . fix enumerations @xmath523 of  @xmath43 and @xmath524 of  @xmath192 . by the above remarks , it is sufficient to encode  @xmath27 in the directed @xmath512 grid . consider the following subsets of @xmath525 \times [ n]$].08em : @xmath526 \times \{0\}\,,\qquad    & p'_r & : = \set { \langle 0,k\rangle } { e_k \in p_r } \ , , \\    e '    & : = \{0\ } \times [ n]\,,\qquad    & i'_l & : = \set { \langle i , k\rangle } { ( a_i , e_k ) \in { \mathrm{in}}_l } \,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] then @xmath27 can be recovered from  @xmath20 by an @xmath6-transduction using these sets as parameters . @xmath527 .    for one direction , note that @xmath528 implies @xmath529 . conversely , each finite tree can be obtained as minor of a binary tree . therefore , we have @xmath530 .    we have @xmath531 if and only if @xmath8  is finite and contains at least one nonempty structure . as indicated in the example before lemma  [ lem : transductions are comorphisms ] , there exists a transduction mapping an incidence structure  @xmath27 to the incidence structure @xmath146 of the gaifman graph of  @xmath11 . [ lem : gaifman graph interpretable ] for every class  @xmath8 of structures , we have @xmath532 . the next result is just a restatement of lemma  [ lem : minors interpretable ] in our current terminology . [ lem : minor equivalent ] for every class  @xmath8 of graphs we have @xmath533 . in this section we prove that the hierarchy is strict . using the results of section  [ sect : tree decompositions and transductions ] we can characterise each level of the hierarchy in terms of tree - width and its variants . [ thm : characterisation of pwd , twd ] let @xmath505 $ ] . @xmath534 @xmath535 . @xmath536 @xmath537 . @xmath538 @xmath539 .    in each case @xmath231 follows from lemma  [ lem : tree decomposable implies interpretable ] and @xmath230 follows from theorem  [ thm : interpretable implies tree decomposable ] . let @xmath8  be a class of @xmath48-structures . @xmath540 implies @xmath541 . @xmath542 implies @xmath543 . \(a ) suppose that @xmath540 . then theorem  [ thm : excluded tree theorem ] implies that @xmath544 . hence , the claim follows from lemmas [ lem : gaifman graph interpretable ]  and  [ lem : minor equivalent ] . \(b ) suppose that @xmath542 . then theorem  [ thm : excluded grid theorem ] implies that @xmath545 . as in  ( a ) , the claim follows from lemmas [ lem : gaifman graph interpretable ]  and  [ lem : minor equivalent ] . [ cor : nothing between p , t , g ] let @xmath505 $ ] . @xmath546 implies @xmath541 . @xmath547 implies @xmath548 . in particular , it follows that the upper part of the hierarchy is strict.08em :    [ cor : upper part ] @xmath549    both assertions follow from theorem  [ thm : characterisation of pwd , twd ] and corollary  [ cor : nothing between p , t , g ] .    for the first one , note that we have @xmath550 since @xmath551 . conversely , @xmath552 implies , by theorem  [ thm : characterisation of pwd , twd](a ) , that @xmath553 . hence , @xmath554 . finally , if @xmath555 then @xmath534 , by corollary  [ cor : nothing between p , t , g](a ) . consequently , we have @xmath556 . similarly , the fact that @xmath557 follows from lemma  [ lem : g is top ] . since @xmath558 , theorem  [ thm : characterisation of pwd , twd](b ) implies that @xmath559 . finally , we obtain @xmath560 by corollary  [ cor : nothing between p , t , g](b ) . let us turn to the lower part . we start with two technical lemmas . let @xmath561 be an order - tree . vertices @xmath562 of  @xmath83 are _ horizontally related via _ a vertex  @xmath153 if all  @xmath156 are at the same level of the tree and @xmath563 , for all @xmath564 . [ lem : large degree is preserved ] let @xmath70 be a coloured order - tree of height  @xmath4 , and suppose that @xmath1  is a parameterless @xmath9-copying @xmath6-transduction of rank  @xmath52 such that @xmath431 is a successor - tree of height at most @xmath258 . consider vertices @xmath562 of  @xmath70 that are horizontally related via  @xmath153 and fix some number @xmath565 . let @xmath566  be the successor of  @xmath153 with @xmath567 . if , for all @xmath568 , we have @xmath569 then at least @xmath570 elements of the set @xmath571 ( these are elements of the domain of @xmath431 ) are horizontally related in @xmath431 . let @xmath572 be the formula defining the successor relation in @xmath431 between vertices of the form @xmath573 and @xmath574 . by assumption the rank of  @xmath572 is at most  @xmath52 . first , note that a vertex @xmath575 is on level  @xmath433 in @xmath431 if and only if there are indices @xmath576 such that @xmath577        \exists y_0\cdots\exists y_{h-1}\bigl[\land_{i < h-1 } \varphi_{s_is_{i+1}}(y_i , y_{i+1 } )        & \land \varphi_{s_{h-1}l}(y_{h-1},v ) \\        & \land \neg \exists z\lor_{s < k } \varphi_{ss_0}(z , y_0)\bigr ]      \end{aligned}\end{aligned}\ ] ] expresses that there exists a path of the form @xmath578 from the root @xmath579 of  @xmath431 to the vertex @xmath575 . by assumption on  @xmath156 and lemma [ lem : composition for trees ] , we have @xmath580 since the rank of @xmath581 is @xmath582 it follows that @xmath583 hence , all vertices @xmath584 are on the same level  @xmath433 in @xmath431 . we prove by induction on  @xmath433 that @xmath585 implies that all but at most one of @xmath584 are horizontally related . let @xmath586  be the predecessor of @xmath587 in @xmath431 , that is , @xmath588 we distinguish two cases . first suppose that @xmath589 in  @xmath70 . by  @xmath590 and lemma  [ lem : composition for trees ] , we have @xmath591 for all  @xmath41 such that @xmath592 . note that there can be at most one index  @xmath41 that does not satisfy this condition since , if we had @xmath593 and @xmath594 , for @xmath595 , then we would have @xmath596 and @xmath562 would not be horizontally related via  @xmath153 . it follows that @xmath597 hence , @xmath598 is the common predecessor of all the @xmath587 , except for possibly one of them . ( for an index  @xmath41 with @xmath593 our composition argument does not work since in that case @xmath590  does not imply that the theories of @xmath599 and @xmath600 coincide . ) it remains to consider the case that @xmath601 . setting @xmath602 we have @xmath603\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] since the rank of this formula is @xmath604 it follows that @xmath605\ , ,    \quad\text{for all } i < m\,.\end{aligned}\ ] ] consequently , we have @xmath606 , for all  @xmath41 , and @xmath607 are horizontally related via  @xmath153 . since the vertices @xmath608 are on level @xmath609 in @xmath431 , we can apply the induction hypothesis and it follows that all but at most one of then are horizontally related via some vertex  @xmath610 . therefore , the same holds for their successors @xmath584 . we denote by @xmath611 the number of functions @xmath612)$ ] with @xmath613 . intuitively , each such function corresponds to a vertex - colouring of the tree @xmath85 with @xmath614  colours .    for @xmath615 and @xmath122 , we have @xmath616    for @xmath617 , we have @xmath618 since @xmath619^{<n } } = \sum_{i < n } m^i = m^{n-1 } + \sum_{i < n-1 } m^i$ ] it follows that @xmath620^{<n } } \leq 2m^{n-1}.\end{aligned}\ ] ] therefore , we can bound @xmath621^{<n}}}\end{aligned}\ ] ] from above by @xmath622 and from below by @xmath623 --    [ lem : lower part strict ] @xmath624    for a contradiction , suppose that there exists a transduction  @xmath1 such that @xmath625 . let @xmath626  be the class of all order - trees corresponding to successor - trees in  @xmath506 , and let @xmath627 be the class of all coloured successor - trees with one colour whose underlying tree is in  @xmath628 . since the successor - trees in  @xmath506 are @xmath63-sparse we can construct an @xmath6-transduction  @xmath629 such that @xmath630 . since @xmath631 we can combine @xmath1  and  @xmath629 to a transduction  @xmath165 such that @xmath632 . by lemma  [ lem : large degree is preserved ] , it follows that there is some constant  @xmath633 such that every tree @xmath634 with out - degree at most  @xmath9 is of the form @xmath635 where @xmath636 has out - degree at most  @xmath637 . ( the out - degree of an order - tree is the out - degree of the corresponding successor - tree . ) suppose that @xmath165  uses @xmath614  parameters . there are @xmath638 colourings of trees in @xmath626 with out - degree at most  @xmath637 . on the other hand , there are @xmath639 trees in @xmath640 with out - degree at most  @xmath9 . for large  @xmath9 it follows that @xmath641 consequently , there is some tree in @xmath640 that is not the image of a tree in  @xmath626 . a  contradiction . we have shown that the hierarchy presented in theorem  [ thm : hierarchy ] is strict . to conclude the proof of the theorem it therefore remains to show that there are no additional classes . we have already seen in corollary  [ cor : upper part ] that @xmath501  and  @xmath503 are the only classes above @xmath502 . next we shall prove that @xmath642 . [ lem : embeddable trees means interpretable ] let @xmath8  be a class of structures . if , for every number @xmath131 , there exists a structure @xmath214 such that we can embed @xmath259 into every tree underlying a tree decomposition @xmath223 of  @xmath11 of width  @xmath9 , then @xmath643 .    by lemma  [ lem : existence of strict tree decompositions ] , it follows that , for every @xmath131 , there is a structure in  @xmath8 with a strict tree decomposition of width at most  @xmath9 and with an underlying tree  @xmath83 into which we can embed the tree  @xmath259 . according to proposition  [ prop : strict tree decompositions definable ] there is a transduction mapping  @xmath8 to the class of trees underlying these strict tree decompositions . hence , there exists a class @xmath644 of successor - trees containing , for every @xmath131 , some tree into which we can embed @xmath259 . hence , @xmath645 . [ thm : covering for lower part ] let @xmath8  be a class of structures . then @xmath646 implies @xmath539 . suppose that @xmath646 . then @xmath647 since @xmath648 . by lemmas [ lem : gaifman graph interpretable ]  and  [ lem : minor equivalent ] , this implies that @xmath649 . therefore , we can find a path that is not in @xmath650 . by theorem  [ thm : excluded path theorem ] , it follows that there are numbers @xmath651 such that @xmath652 .    by induction on  @xmath151 , we prove that @xmath653 implies @xmath539 . for @xmath654 , there is nothing to do . for @xmath655 , we have @xmath656 , which implies that @xmath657 . consequently , it follows by lemma  [ lem : embeddable trees means interpretable ] and corollary  [ cor : bound on twd - n ] that @xmath658 . by induction hypothesis , the result follows .    by lemma  [ lem : tree decomposable implies interpretable ] we obtain the following results . [ cor : nothing between tn and tn+1 ] if @xmath646 then @xmath538 . [ cor : lower part covers ] @xmath659 .    to conclude the proof of theorem  [ thm : hierarchy ] it remains to show that there are no classes between the lower part of the hierarchy and its upper part . [ lem : calt_n dense below calp ] let @xmath8  be a class of structures . if @xmath660 , for all @xmath33 , then @xmath661 . we show the contraposition . suppose that @xmath647 . we have to show that there is some  @xmath4 such that @xmath662 . as in the proof of theorem  [ thm : covering for lower part ] it follows that there are numbers @xmath651 such that @xmath652 . hence , we can use lemma  [ lem : tree decomposable implies interpretable ] to obtain a transduction  @xmath1 witnessing that @xmath663 . by theorem  [ lem : lower part strict ] we have @xmath664 . it follows that @xmath665 , as desired . [ cor : noting between lower and upper part ] if @xmath666 then there is some @xmath33 such that @xmath538 .    by lemma  [ lem : calt_n dense below calp ] , there is some @xmath33 such that @xmath646 . hence , corollary  [ cor : nothing between tn and tn+1 ] implies that @xmath538 . together , corollaries [ cor : upper part ] ,  [ cor : lower part covers ] , and  [ cor : noting between lower and upper part ] ( and the fact that every class  @xmath8 satisfies @xmath667 ) show that every class of @xmath48-structures is @xmath491-equivalent to some of the classes in theorem  [ thm : hierarchy ] . this completes the proof of this theorem . above we have obtained a complete description of the transduction hierarchy for classes of finite incidence structures . the most surprising result is that the hierarchy is linear . at this point there are at least three natural directions in which to proceed . an answer to  ( ii ) seems within reach , at least if we restrict our attention to countable structures . although the resulting hierarchy is no longer linear we can adapt most of our techniques to this setting . ( for an example of nonlinearity , note that the class of all countable trees and the class of all finite grids are incomparable . )    concerning question  ( iii ) , let us remark that all results above go through if we use @xmath110 instead of  @xmath6 . we only need the right definition of rank for @xmath110 . in the proof of theorem  [ lem : lower part strict ] we needed the fact that there are only finitely many theories of bounded rank . we can ensure this for @xmath110 by defining the rank as the least number  @xmath4 such that        for logics much weaker than @xmath6 , on the other hand , it seems unrealistic to hope for a complete description of the corresponding transduction hierarchy . for instance , a related hierarchy for first - order logic was investigated by mycielski , pudlk , and stern in  @xcite . the results they obtain indicate that the structure of the resulting hierarchy is very complicated . finally , let us address question  ( i ) . when using transductions between structures instead of their incidence structures , we can transfer some of the above results to the corresponding hierarchy . but we presently have no complete description since we miss some of the corresponding excluded minor results . note that all classes in theorem  [ thm : hierarchy for mso ] are @xmath58-sparse . for @xmath58-sparse classes @xmath8 and  @xmath17 , lemma  [ lem : relation between ad and in ] implies that @xmath679 consequently , the result follows from theorem  [ thm : hierarchy ] . if we only consider classes of graphs and if we use @xmath110-transductions instead of @xmath6-transductions , then the following result can be used as replacement of theorem  [ thm : excluded grid theorem].08em :      this eliminates some possibilities for intermediate classes of graphs in the hierarchy of theorem  [ thm : hierarchy for mso ] , but to complete the picture we still need analogues of proposition  [ prop : strict tree decompositions definable ] and of theorems [ thm : excluded tree theorem ]  and  [ thm : excluded path theorem ] . furthermore , the techniques of  @xcite are specific to graphs ( or , more generally , to relational structures where all relations are binary ) . even with the results of  @xcite one can not exclude the existence of a class  @xmath8 of arbitrary relational structures strictly between @xmath501  and  @xmath503 in the @xmath110-transduction hierarchy . let us make a final comment about relational structures . an incidence structure  @xmath27 can be seen as a bipartite labelled directed graph ( see the remark after definition  [ def : incidence structure ] ) . furthermore , it is @xmath63-sparse . hence , our results use tools from graph theory , in particular those of @xcite . however , there is currently no encoding of relational structures as labelled graphs that could help to solve question  ( i ) above .
Abstract:

Answer: we compare classes of finite relational structures via monadic second - order transductions . more precisely , we study the preorder where we set @xmath0 if , and only if , there exists a transduction @xmath1 such that @xmath2 . if we only consider classes of _ incidence structures _ we can completely describe the resulting hierarchy . it is linear of order type @xmath3 . each level can be characterised in terms of a suitable variant of tree - width . canonical representatives of the various levels are0.08em : the class of all trees of height  @xmath4 , for each @xmath5 , of all paths , of all trees , and of all grids .