the use of cavity qed tools is now ubiquitous across different areas of physics ranging from quantum information @xcite to detection of dark matter @xcite .
specifically , the atoms held in optical cavities play a vital role in studies of many - body physics @xcite .
such systems are natural implementations of many - body jaynes - cummings ( jc ) or dicke hamiltonians @xcite .
their high tunability and the possibility of achieving strong light matter coupling or probing the dynamics in real time make them very attractive experimental platforms .
the prospect of probing phase transitions and the associated critical phenomena with these platforms have been put forward e.g. in @xcite and the non - equilibrium dynamics of the dicke model has been theoretically investigated in @xcite .
specific many - body phenomena that can be studied with cavity qed include for example the physics of spin glasses @xcite or the self - organization of the atomic motion @xcite , to name a few .
the self - organization has been subsequently observed in the experiments @xcite .
so far we have mentioned only studies concerning a single cavity - generalizations to multiple cavity arrays implementing the hubbard physics have been reviewed in @xcite . although appealing in principle , the realization of many efficiently coupled cavities , each hosting a discrete - level quantum system is a challenging task . to make such experiment scalable requires miniaturization of the cavities .
one possibility is the use of microcavities in photonic crystals @xcite .
a further option is to use integrated optical circuits , where in principle arbitrary waveguide forms can be created with high precision by laser engraving in the silica substrate @xcite .
they have been successfully used for the demonstration of a quantum gate operation @xcite , creation of classical and quantum correlations @xcite , multi - photon entangled state preparation @xcite , quantum random walk @xcite , discrete fourier transform @xcite or bloch oscillations @xcite .    while it has been demonstrated that cavities can be fabricated by creating the bragg grating during the laser writing process
@xcite , there is now an active experimental effort to combine the waveguides with atomic microtraps on a single device @xcite .    motivated by these developments and the prospects of studying many - body physics using integrated optical circuits with trapped atoms ,
we theoretically analyze the non - equilibrium physics of such system , which we take to be a two - dimensional cavity array , where each cavity hosts a number of atoms .
we first derive the effective hamiltonian describing the system in sec . [
sec : model ] . using this hamiltonian
we find mean - field ( mf ) equations of motion whose solutions feature rich dynamics , including bistable behaviour , ising like phase transition or the occurrence of limit cycles , which we discuss in detail in sec .
[ sec : mf ] .
we then conclude in sec .
[ sec : conclusion ] .     is sketched by the large red circle .
( b ) atomic level scheme ( only a single @xmath0 mode is shown , see text for details).,width=453 ]
we consider a two - dimensional array of identical three - level atoms each coupled to a horizontal cavity mode @xmath1 and vertical cavity mode @xmath2 with the same coupling constant @xmath3 , fig .
[ fig : scheme]a . from here on we use latin and greek indices to denote horizontal and vertical degrees of freedom respectively . in order to simplify the notation
, we omit the sum symbols and summation over occurrences of indices labeling the _ spatial _ position is understood ( i.e. @xmath4 ) .
we will use indices with bar , e.g. @xmath5 , when we want to emphasize that the index @xmath5 is fixed and is not summed over .
the atomic level structure is depicted in fig .
[ fig : scheme]b .
the @xmath6 transition is coupled to cavity mode @xmath7 ( @xmath8 ) with frequency @xmath9 ( @xmath10 ) .
the @xmath11 transition is coupled using a strong transverse classical light , whose direction of propagation is perpendicular to the plane of the cavity array and which has rabi frequency @xmath12 , carrier frequency @xmath13 and detuning @xmath14 .
the main reason for choosing a three level @xmath15 system is that it allows , in the limit of large @xmath14 , to adiabatically eliminate the excited state @xmath16 in order to avoid the losses due to the spontaneous emission and to obtain an effective hamiltonian in the ground state manifold subspace .
this effective hamiltonian features a high tunability , cf . below .
we now proceed with the derivation of the effective hamiltonian .
we discuss the issue of cavity gain and loss later in sec .
[ sec : mf ] .
the system is described by the hamiltonian ( in the rotating wave approximation ) h & = & _ i a_i^a_i + _ b_^b_+ _ e _
i_i + _ s _
i_i   + & & + ( _ i_i e^-i _ t t + _
i_i e^i _ t t ) + & & + g ( _ i_i ( a_i + b _ ) + h.c . ) .
[ eq : h rwa 2d ] the excited state @xmath16 can be adiabatically eliminated in the standard way , see appendix [ app : ad.el ] for details .
the resulting effective hamiltonian reads    h = _
i a_i^a_i + _ b_^b_+ ^z_i + ( ^+_i ( a_i + b _ ) + h.c . ) + f_i , [ eq : h eff rwa 2d ] where @xmath17 are the usual pauli matrices in the @xmath18 basis , _
| & = & _ s - + & = & - + f_|i | & = & ( _ s - ) .
[ eq : pars eff ] and @xmath19 , @xmath20 and @xmath21 .
here , @xmath22 is an auxiliary frequency used in the adiabatic elimination which , in principle , can be chosen arbitrarily .
its physical motivation and interpretation will be discussed momentarily in sec .
[ sec : single cavity ] .
the effective hamiltonian ( [ eq : h eff rwa 2d ] ) is the starting point in this section , where we analyze the effect of cavity loss and pump on the dynamics .
also , it can be seen from the form of the hamiltonian and the expressions ( [ eq : pars eff ] ) , that the parameters are highly tunable through varying @xmath23 and @xmath24 .
we first perform a mf analysis of a simpler system with only one cavity mode , which already contains rich physics as we show below .
we then turn back to the multi - mode two - dimensional setup in sec .
[ sec:2d ] .
_ cavity without pump _    lets first consider the hamiltonian ( [ eq : h eff rwa 2d ] ) in the single cavity limit with the single mode @xmath0 , i.e. we drop the indices @xmath25 and @xmath26 .
we rewrite the hamiltonian as h = ( + a^a ) ^z + _
ph a^a + ( ^+ a + a^^- ) , [ eq : h jc ] where @xmath27 are the global spin operators and _ at & = & _ s - + _ ph & = & - = - _ aux - + & = & - , with @xmath28 being the cavity frequency . note that the model ( [ eq : h jc ] ) without the @xmath29 term is the usual jc model @xcite .
below we show , that the @xmath29 term is indeed at the origin of intriguing system dynamics ( see also @xcite for various other non - linear extensions of the jc model ) .
one can now derive the equation of motion for the operator @xmath30 according to @xmath31 $ ] , where @xmath32 is given by ( [ eq : h jc ] ) . at the same time , any realistic cavity is subject to a decay of the electromagnetic field into the environment .
the dissipation process is typically described by means of a master equation ( see e.g. @xcite ) , which corresponds to an extra term in the equation of motion for the cavity mode operator , @xmath33 , where @xmath34 denotes the cavity loss rate ( see fig . [
fig : scheme]a ) . introducing the expectation values of the operators
@xmath35 , it is now straightforward to derive the the mf equations of motion , which read    [ eq : eoms mf ] @xmath36    in the derivation we have used the mf decoupling @xmath37 and @xmath38 .
we have also neglected the spin decay on the transition @xmath39 typically belong to some ground state manifold , where only magnetic dipole transitions are allowed between the states of that manifold . in turn , the spin decay is negligible compared to the cavity decay . ]
first , we wish to find a steady state solution of the equations of motion ( [ eq : eoms mf ] ) . from ( [ eq : eoms mf a ] ) and ( [ eq : eoms mf w ] ) we have & = & - s c s [ eq : cond1 ] + s^ * & = & ^ * s. [ eq : cond2 ] substituting eq.([eq : cond1 ] ) to eq.([eq : cond2 ] ) yields c |s|^2 = c^ * |s|^2 .
[ eq : restr ] when @xmath40 is complex , which occurs only for non - zero cavity decay @xmath41 , the condition eq.([eq : restr ] ) can be satisfied if @xmath42 ( and consequently @xmath43 ) , which results in a trivial solution with empty cavity and all spins down ( up ) in the steady state .
this indicates that in order to obtain some non - trivial physics in the steady state limit and to counteract the cavity losses , one needs to input energy into the system@xmath16 transition are taken to be at optical frequencies . ] . in our case
a natural choice is either through the pumping of the cavity mode or driving directly the @xmath39 transition .
we focus here on the former case only .
+ _ cavity with pump _    the cavity pump can be described by the hamiltonian h_pump = a^^-i _ p t + ^ * a e^i _ p t. when adding @xmath44 to the system hamiltonian ( [ eq : h rwa 2d ] ) , the explicit time dependence in the total hamiltonian can be removed if the auxiliary frequency @xmath22 in ( [ eq : pars eff ] ) is chosen such that it is the frequency of the cavity pump , @xmath45 .
the mf equations of motion ( [ eq : eoms mf ] ) then become _ r & = & - _
r + ( w + _ ph ) _ i - s_y + _ i + _ i & = & -(w + _ ph ) _ r - _ i - s_x - _ r + _ x & = & - 2 w _
i - ( _ at + 2 ||^2 ) s_y + _ y & = & - 2 w _
r + ( _ at + 2 ||^2 ) s_x + & = & 2 ( _ r s_y + _ i s_x ) , [ eq : eoms mf pump real ] where we have introduced real variables through @xmath46 , @xmath47 and @xmath48 .    note that the equations ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ] ) imply the conservation of the total spin w^2 + 4 |s|^2 = n^2 , [ eq : spin conservation ] where @xmath49 is the total number of the spins .
this can be easily verified as _
t s^2 = _ t ( s_x^2 + s_y^2 + w^2 ) = _ t ( 4 s s^ * + w^2 ) = 0 , [ eq : diff spin conservation ] where we have parametrized the total spin as @xmath50 .    ) for ( a ) @xmath51 and ( b ) @xmath52 .
left hand side ( right hand side ) of ( [ eq : gon eq ] ) is represented by solid blue ( red ) lines .
see text for details.,width=491 ]      in order to investigate the steady state solutions , we first put @xmath53 to further simplify the problem ( see e.g. @xcite for related studies of the phase diagram of the jc and dicke models ) .
we then turn back to the situation with @xmath54 in the next section . with these simplifications ,
the real equations for the steady state read    [ eq : eoms mf pump real ss ] @xmath55    solving the set ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ss ar],[eq : eoms mf pump real ss ai ] ) for @xmath56 and substituting to ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ss sx]-[eq : eoms mf pump real ss w ] ) we obtain for the spin conservation ( [ eq : spin conservation ] ) w^2 - n^2 = , [ eq : poly w ] where @xmath57 .
this is a 4th order polynomial for @xmath58 and its solutions in terms of radicals can in principle be found yielding rather complicated expressions , which are not of much practical use .
instead , we will analyze the properties of ( [ eq : poly w ] ) as follows . since @xmath59 $ ] , the lhs of ( [ eq : poly w ] ) is non - positive , namely @xmath60 $ ] . at the same time
the nominator of the rhs is clearly non - positive , so that the non - positivity of the rhs requires the quadratic polynomial in the denominator to be non - negative .
we thus have g^4 w^2 + _
at^2 ^2 + _ ph _ at ( 2 g^2 w + _ ph _ at ) 0 .
[ eq : cond poly ] the roots of this polynomial read w_= . it can be immediately seen that for @xmath41 , any @xmath61 would yield imaginary @xmath58 .
this however does not mean that a solution of the original constraint ( [ eq : poly w ] ) is not possible for both @xmath62 .
rather , it means that the point @xmath63 has some particular properties which we will investigate further .    for @xmath63 , the steady state equations read    [ eq : ss l0 d0 ] @xmath64    ( [ eq : ss l0 d0 sx],[eq : ss l0 d0 sy ] ) imply either @xmath65 or @xmath66 .
if @xmath66 , the equations can be readily solved to yield s_x & = & - + s_y & = & + w & = & .
[ eq : sol a=0 ] these solutions can be valid only for @xmath67 .    in the case
where @xmath65 , we can use the spin conservation to parametrize the spin as @xmath68 .
( [ eq : ss l0 d0 w ] ) then becomes = .
[ eq : tan ] next we can express @xmath56 from ( [ eq : ss l0 d0 ar],[eq : ss l0 d0 ai ] ) as _ r & = & + _ i & = & - .
[ eq : alpha tan ] substituting these expressions to ( [ eq : tan ] ) yields the condition for the angle @xmath69 which determines the solution and can be found numerically . in order to proceed further analytically
, we put @xmath70 . the equation ( [ eq : tan ] )
can then be cast in the form z + = _ ph [ eq : gon eq ] or equivalently ( ^2 + _
ph^2 ) ^2 + 2 z + z^2 - _
ph^2 = 0 [ eq : cos eq ] with solutions = , [ eq : sol cos ] where @xmath71 .
it is easy to understand the structure of solutions from the graphical representation of ( [ eq : gon eq ] ) , which is shown in fig .
[ fig : gon ] . the left ( right ) hand side of ( [ eq : gon eq ] ) is represented by solid blue ( red ) line respectively . assuming @xmath72 , fig .
[ fig : gon]a ( fig .
[ fig : gon]b ) shows a situation for @xmath51 ( @xmath52 ) respectively . if @xmath51 , one of the solutions is negative , while both solutions are positive for @xmath52 .
when tuning @xmath73 , the non negativity of the discriminant in ( [ eq : sol cos ] ) determines the maximal coupling @xmath74 up to which the solutions ( [ eq : sol cos ] ) can be found .
it reads g^*_2 = .
[ eq : g crit 2 ] note , that the region @xmath75 $ ] admits both solutions ( [ eq : sol a=0 ] ) and ( [ eq : alpha tan],[eq : sol cos ] ) indicating a bistable behaviour . in what follows
we refer to the points @xmath76 as transition points .
+ _ stability study _ + the stability analysis of the steady state solutions ( [ eq : sol a=0 ] ) and ( [ eq : alpha tan],[eq : sol cos ] ) is performed in a standard way by linearizing ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ] ) around the solutions , i.e. expressing the variables as @xmath77 , where @xmath78 denotes the steady state solution .
formally this yields the linearized equations of motion = m v + b , [ eq : stability ] where @xmath79 .
instability of the solutions is indicated by the positivity of the real part of the maximum eigenvalue of @xmath80 , see appendix [ app : general stability ] for details .
it is noteworthy , that in any steady state solution we have either @xmath81 or @xmath82 and consequently the characteristic polynomial of the matrix @xmath80 becomes |m - y | = y p(y^4 ) , where @xmath83 is some polynomial which is 4th order in @xmath84 .
we thus always have one eigenvalue @xmath85 , which is simply the consequence of the spin conservation law ( [ eq : spin conservation ] ) .
examining numerically the negativity of real part of the roots of @xmath83 we identify stable and unstable solutions .
these are depicted by solid and dashed lines respectively in steady state phase diagram fig .
[ fig : stability ] , where we plot @xmath86 and @xmath58 as functions of the coupling @xmath73 .
the region ii exhibits bistable behaviour , whereas regions i and iii admit only a single stable solution .
we have also verified , by numerically solving the dynamical equations ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ] ) , that they indeed evolve into the steady state solutions ( [ eq : sol a=0],[eq : alpha tan],[eq : sol cos ] ) ( not shown ) . in the next two subsections
we investigate how the inclusion of the non - zero atomic detuning @xmath87 and non - zero coupling @xmath29 terms modifies the @xmath88 solution .    , @xmath89 and @xmath90 respectively .
stable ( unstable ) steady state solutions are indicated by solid ( dashed ) lines .
( a ) @xmath86 and ( b ) @xmath58 as functions of the coupling @xmath73 .
region i exhibits two possible solutions corresponding to the two solutions of ( [ eq : alpha tan ] ) .
region ii exhibits the coexistence of the solutions ( [ eq : alpha tan ] ) together with the solution ( [ eq : sol a=0 ] ) indicating bistability .
the line colors are used as eye guide to help to identify corresponding @xmath86 and @xmath58 solutions .
parameter values used are @xmath91.,width=491 ]     regime : the shaded area represents the shrinking of the @xmath92 $ ] region ( denoted as region ii , see also fig .
[ fig : stability ] ) with increasing @xmath29 .
( b ) @xmath93 regime : the shaded area corresponds to the region of @xmath73 exhibiting four solutions for a given @xmath73 ( denoted as region r , see also fig .
[ fig : delta_grid]a , b ) as @xmath87 is increased .
the critical value of @xmath87 at which the four simultaneous solutions cease to exist is represented by the red circle.,width=491 ]      in order to shed light on the effect of the @xmath29 term independently of the @xmath87 term , we keep @xmath63 . from ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ] ) the steady state equations read    [ eq : ss lneq0 d0 ] @xmath94    finding the steady state solution encompasses solving a 6th order polynomial equation , which in general can only be done numerically .
nevertheless , some information about the steady state solution can be obtained analytically as we now describe .
substituting @xmath95 from ( [ eq : ss lneq0 d0 sx],[eq : ss lneq0 d0 sy ] ) to the spin conservation ( [ eq : spin conservation ] ) , we get the following condition for @xmath58 w^2 = n^2 .
[ eq : cond w2 ] since @xmath96 , the relation ( [ eq : cond w2 ] ) indicates , that there is no further instability ( @xmath97 ) when changing @xmath29 , i.e. there are also two transition points @xmath76 for @xmath54 .
next , one can find solutions for asymptotic values of the parameter @xmath29 .
clearly , for @xmath98 , one should recover the solutions of sec .
[ sec : linear ] . on the other hand , for @xmath99 , one can look for solution by substituting a perturbative expansion for all the variables of the form @xmath100 .
we provide the details of this expansion in appendix [ app : lambda exp . ] . in order to simplify the analytic expressions we take the imaginary part of the pump to be zero , @xmath101 . in this case , to leading order in @xmath29 , the solutions read @xmath102 and    [ eq : sx0 ] @xmath103    interestingly , since the spin conservation implies @xmath104 , the two solutions ( [ eq : sx0 1 ] ) , ( [ eq : sx0 2 ] ) yield the same transition point @xmath105 .
this is in contrast to the @xmath53 case , where two distinct transition points @xmath106 were identified . here , the solution ( [ eq : sx0 1 ] ) is valid for @xmath107 , whereas ( [ eq : sx0 2 ] ) is valid for @xmath108 .
this indicates that the transition point @xmath109 approaches @xmath110 as @xmath29 is increased until they become identical in the @xmath99 limit . in other words , the region ii of the phase diagram fig .
[ fig : stability ] is shrinking to zero width as @xmath29 is increased . for the intermediate values of @xmath29 ,
the values of @xmath76 can be found numerically ( selecting only the physically meaningful solutions of the 6th order polynomial , corresponding to the real values of @xmath58 ) .
we plot the shrinking of the @xmath92 $ ] region in fig .
[ fig : g2 to g1]a .     and the expectation value @xmath58 of the spin as functions of the coupling strength @xmath73 for various values of the nonlinearity @xmath29 : @xmath111 in ( a , b ) and @xmath112 in ( c , d ) .
stable ( unstable ) solutions are shown as solid ( dashed ) lines .
panels ( e , f ) show a magnification of the data shown in ( c , d ) in the vicinity of the critical point @xmath110 .
the dashed dotted lines represent the analytic scaling solutions ( [ eq : a2 ] ) and ( [ eq : w0 ] ) respectively . in all plots
the line colors are used as eye guide to help to identify the corresponding @xmath86 and @xmath58 solutions.,width=491 ]     and @xmath113 ( point a in fig . [ fig : lambda_grid]b ) represented by the evolution of the spin on the bloch sphere . here
the direction of time corresponds to the increasing opacity of the spin evolution line .
( b ) evolution of @xmath58 as a function of time .
we take the initial ( final ) time to be the same in ( a ) and ( b).,width=491 ]    in fig .
[ fig : lambda_grid ] we show the phase diagrams for @xmath86 and @xmath58 for increasing values of @xmath29 .
it can be seen from fig .
[ fig : lambda_grid]a , b , that for some values of @xmath29 , there is a region with no apparent stable solution . in non - linear systems , this is typically a signature of the appearance of limit cycles which occur through a hopf bifurcation as the system leaves the stable fixed point by changing the coupling @xmath73 @xcite .
we represent a limit cycle corresponding to the point a in fig .
[ fig : lambda_grid]b as the time evolution of the global spin in fig .
[ fig : limit_cycle ] .    one can carry the analysis further in the large @xmath29 limit and look for asymptotic solutions in the vicinity of the unique transition point @xmath110 . the first non - trivial contribution to @xmath114
is of order @xmath115 and given by ( see appendix [ app : lambda exp . ] ) | |^2 = ( g_1^ * - ) ( + 13 ) + o((g_1^ * -)^ ) , [ eq : a2 ] which is valid for @xmath116 as the solution for @xmath52 is trivial ( @xmath43 ) .
the scaling of the spin observables , say @xmath58 , is simply obtained from the expansion of ( [ eq : sx0 ] ) , which read    [ eq : w0 ] @xmath117    where the sign @xmath118 depends on the branch of @xmath58 considered .
note that the scaling @xmath119 is characteristic of the ising type model with @xmath120 symmetry and @xmath110 is the phase transition critical point .
we compare the asymptotic solutions ( [ eq : a2]),([eq : w0 ] ) with the solutions obtained by numerically solving ( [ eq : ss lneq0 d0 ] ) in fig .
[ fig : lambda_grid]e , f .     and @xmath58 for @xmath121 ( a , b ) and @xmath122 ( c , d ) .
r in ( a , b ) denotes a region exhibiting four distinct solutions .
stable ( unstable ) solutions are shown as solid ( dashed ) lines .
the line colors are used as eye guide to help to identify the corresponding @xmath86 and @xmath58 solutions .
parameter values used are @xmath91.,width=491 ]      our next aim is to explore the effect of the @xmath87 term on the solution in the absence of the non - linear @xmath29 term . in this case
, the structure of the solutions is dictated by the 4th order @xmath58 polynomial ( [ eq : poly w ] ) and it is straightforward to obtain the solutions numerically . for small @xmath87 , there is a range of @xmath73-values , which admits four solutions ( corresponding to four real solutions of ( [ eq : poly w ] ) ) , fig .
[ fig : delta_grid]a , b . as @xmath87 is increased
, this region eventually disappears leaving us with only two solutions for all values of @xmath73 .
the latter limit can be simply understood from the mf equations ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ss ] ) . in the large @xmath87 limit
, the leading contribution comes from ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ss sx],[eq : eoms mf pump real ss sy ] ) with the trivial solutions @xmath123 implying @xmath124 .
the evolution of the solutions towards this large @xmath87 limit can be seen rather clearly from fig .
[ fig : delta_grid]d . next we have determined numerically the size of the region of @xmath73 admitting four solutions as a function of @xmath87 .
this is shown in fig .
[ fig : g2 to g1]b .
clearly , there is some maximal @xmath87 after which there are only two possible solutions , as discussed .
this limiting value is represented by the red circle in fig .
[ fig : g2 to g1]b . note , that the inclusion of the @xmath87 term also lifts the transition point @xmath110 , i.e. that all solutions are smooth in the vicinity of @xmath110 .      in this section
we seek the generalization of the single cavity case to higher dimensional geometries .
for concreteness , we consider a 2d square geometry depicted schematically in fig .
[ fig : scheme]a .    before diving in the details of the analysis
, we motivate this section by asking whether a 2d square geometry offers mf solutions which are qualitatively different from the 1d case studied above .
for example , it was shown in @xcite in the context of laser driven and interacting rydberg gases on a square lattice , that a homogeneous system admits a mf solution that breaks the lattice symmetry and exhibits antiferromagnetic ( af ) order .
we start our discussion by deriving the 2d mf equations , which follow from the operator equations of motion ( [ eq : op eoms ] ) given by the hamiltonian ( [ eq : h eff rwa 2d ] ) . repeating the argument yielding ( [ eq : restr ] ) leads to the same conclusion , namely that in the absence of the cavity pump the system posses only a trivial solution , where the cavity modes are empty and all the spins are down ( up ) .
we first focus on the situation without the non - linear term , @xmath93 . in the following ,
we consider the cavity pump @xmath125 , the cavity decay @xmath34 and the spin decay @xmath126 to be the same for all cavity modes and all spins respectively ( the motivation for adding the spin decay will become clear shortly ) .
we obtain the set of mf equations    [ eq : mf 2d ] @xmath127 - i \gamma \left ( w_{\bar{i } \bar{\nu } } + \mathds{1 } \right ) .
\label{eq : mf 2d sz}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    here , we allowed for the couplings @xmath73 and the photon detunings @xmath128 to be different for rows and columns while taking the remaining parameters to be the same for all cavities .    clearly , the 2d system provides higher tunability by enlarging the parameter space . in the following ,
we study the problem considering two different perspectives , namely a homogeneous and cluster - mf ansatz .      in order to further simplify the mf equations ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) ,
it is reasonable to use the typical mf ansatz , namely that , due to translational symmetry in either direction of the 2d array ( along rows or columns ) , the corresponding cavity fields are the same ( @xmath129 , @xmath130 for all @xmath131 ) as well as the spins , @xmath132 .
we can now proceed along similar lines as in sec .
[ sec : linear ] in order to characterize the solutions . in analogy to sec .
[ sec : linear ] we start with @xmath88 and we neglect the spin decay for the moment , @xmath133 . considering @xmath134 and @xmath135 for all @xmath131 to be the same along rows or columns , the steady state mf equations ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) simplify to    [ eq : mf 2d ass ] @xmath136    here @xmath137 ( @xmath138 ) is the number of rows ( columns ) respectively . since the fields @xmath139 and @xmath114 share the same spin @xmath140 , @xmath139 can be given directly in terms of the field @xmath114 .
the situation is then essentially equivalent to the single cavity case analyzed in sec .
[ sec : single cavity ] , though with some extra tunability provided by larger number of parameters .
for example , one can find the transition point @xmath110 by combining ( [ eq : mf 2d ass a ] ) and ( [ eq : mf 2d ass b ] ) with @xmath141 , which is one possible solution of ( [ eq : mf 2d ass s ] ) .
the transition point then corresponds to the situation where @xmath65 , i.e. |s|^2 = =    @xmath142 for all other parameters fixed . as a consistency check ,
it is easy to verify that one recovers the single cavity expression @xmath143 by omitting all the `` @xmath144 '' variables and setting @xmath145 and @xmath146 , the number of spins .      in the previous section ,
we have used the homogeneous mf ansatz and found that the solutions correspond effectively to a single cavity case with no intriguing spin configurations .
however , it is known and was shown e.g. in @xcite , that a suitable mf ansatz can lead to a non - trivial configuration ( such as antiferromagnetic ordering ) even if the steady state mf equations are completely symmetric under exchange of the spin variables . here
we will consider the simplest possible case of such ansatz where a cluster is formed by two adjacent inequivalent spins @xmath147 and @xmath148 . on the other hand , since the fields @xmath114 and @xmath139 couple to both @xmath149 and @xmath150 in the same way , we take @xmath151 to be the same along rows ( columns ) due to translational symmetry . in order to simplify the equations , we now take all the parameters to be the same along all rows and columns ( i.e. we set @xmath152 and @xmath153 for all @xmath154 ) . starting with the simplest case @xmath88 , the mf equations ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) become    [ eq : mf 2d symm ] @xmath155 - i \gamma \left ( w_{\bar{j } } + \mathds{1 } \right ) \label{eq : mf 2d symm sz},\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where @xmath156 labels the different spins of the cluster and we assumed that each field @xmath151 couples to the same number of spins 1 and 2 , hence the factor @xmath157 in the second term of ( [ eq : mf 2d symm a]),([eq : mf 2d symm b ] ) . here @xmath49 denotes the total number of spins , i.e. there are @xmath158 spins along rows and along columns .
until now we did not comment on the spin conservation in the 2d case .
going back to the most general situation , where every individual spin and cavity mode is described in terms of the corresponding mf variables @xmath159 and @xmath160 respectively , the system evolves according to the full set of the 2d mf equations ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) .
one can verify by means of ( [ eq : diff spin conservation ] ) that ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) actually imply both local w_|i |^2 + 4 | s_|i |^2 |^2 = 1 ,     @xmath133 . in ( [ eq : spin conservation global ] ) @xmath161 and @xmath162 are the global spin components .
one should appreciate that ( [ eq : spin conservation global ] ) actually prevents any spin configuration incompatible with it , including the af order ( which corresponds to @xmath163 when using the here considered cluster - mf ) . in order to see e.g. the af order , such as in @xcite
, one needs to break the global spin conservation .
this is achieved by the inclusion of the spin decay @xmath126 , which breaks both the local and global spin conservations ( [ eq : spin conservation local]),([eq : spin conservation global ] ) .
allowing for the spin decay , we can now ask , whether the solution of the cluster - mf equations ( [ eq : mf 2d symm ] ) features any non - trivial spin configuration ( @xmath164 ) .
first , it follows from ( [ eq : mf 2d symm a ] ) and ( [ eq : mf 2d symm b ] ) that @xmath165 .
next , expressing for @xmath166 from ( [ eq : mf 2d symm s ] ) and substituting to ( [ eq : mf 2d symm sz ] ) , it can be shown that = w_1 = w_2 and @xmath167 from ( [ eq : mf 2d symm s ] ) .
once again we find that the structure of the equations ( [ eq : mf 2d symm ] ) reduces the problem effectively to the single cavity situation described by a simple set of variables @xmath168 and this even when allowing for inequivalent spin configurations and the spin decay .
one might argue , that the equivalence to the single cavity case conjectured in sections [ sec : asym array ] and [ sec : symm array ] is an artefact of taking @xmath169 . indeed ,
when comparing ( [ eq : eoms mf ] ) and ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) , one can note that there is a _ qualitative _ difference between the 1d and 2d situation .
specifically , there is an extra coupling between the @xmath0 and @xmath144 modes , the last term in ( [ eq : mf 2d a ] ) and ( [ eq : mf 2d b ] ) .
we have numerically verified that , in a general situation with variables @xmath170 , @xmath156 and @xmath171 , @xmath172 , @xmath173 , the solutions always yield @xmath174 . for completeness
we have included in our numerical analysis also the special cases , where any possible combination of the following conditions can occur : @xmath175 , @xmath176 , @xmath177 , @xmath53 .    in summary , the mf equations ( [ eq : mf 2d ] ) with the ansatz considered in sections [ sec : asym array ] and [ sec : symm array ] on a square lattice reduce to effectively one - dimensional description with no intriguing spin configurations .
it would be desirable to perform a beyond mf study of the non - linear two - dimensional model in order to asses the true nature of the steady state and the corresponding spin and field configurations , including their mutual correlations .
also we did not fully exploit the possibilities offered by the proposed implementation , such as taking different geometries of the array or allowing for disordered coupling strengths , which we leave for further investigations .
motivated by the progress in integrated optical circuits , we have proposed a possible realization of a two - dimensional cavity array with trapped atoms , which is a promising scalable quantum architecture .
we derived an effective description of the system in terms of jaynes - cummings like hamiltonian with highly tunable parameters and extra non - linear terms .
we then analyzed the dynamics of the system using a mf approach .
we have found a rich behaviour including bistable regions , ising like phase transition or occurrence of limit cycles through hopf bifurcations . in the present setup ,
we have not found conceptual differences between the one and two - dimensional cases at the level of the mf description and with the geometry considered .
we hope that the present work lays down grounds for future studies of the cavity arrays realized with integrated optical circuits .
the problems which might be addressed in the future are e.g. going beyond mf description , accounting for more exotic geometries or studying effective spin physics as a low energy limit of the presented cavity hamiltonian .
we thank t. pohl , j. goette , d. jukic and all members of the quilmi consortium for fruitful discussions .
j.m . would like to thank matteo marcuzzi for useful discussions .
the research leading to these results has received funding from the european research council under the european union s seventh framework programme ( fp/2007 - 2013 ) / erc grant agreement no .
335266 ( escquma ) and the eu - fet grants hairs 612862 and quilmi 295293 .
here we derive the effective hamiltonian resulting from the adiabatic elimination of the state @xmath16 and starting with the full system hamiltonian given in ( [ eq : h rwa 2d ] ) , which we rewrite in the hard - core boson representation with annihilation operators @xmath178 , @xmath179 for the atom at position @xmath180 h & = & _ i a_i^a_i + _ b_^b_+ _ e b^_e , i b_e , i + _ s b^_s , i b_s , i + & & + ( b^_e , i b_s , i e^-i _ t t + b^_s , i b_e , i e^i _ t t ) + & & + g ( b^_e , i b_g , i ( a_i + b _ ) + h.c . ) .
[ eq : h rwa 2d hard core ]    first , we determine the transformation to the rotating frame .
we consider a general unitary transformation u = e^-it ( _ i a_i^a_i + _ b_^b_+ _ i b_e , i^b_e , i + _ i b_s , i^b_s , i ) , where @xmath181 are some arbitrary frequencies .
the requirement of eliminating all explicit time dependencies in eq.([eq : h rwa 2d hard core ] ) leads to the conditions _
|i    _ |i & = & _ |i
| + _ | & = & _ |i | . [ eq : cond rwa 2d ] note that in general , it is not possible to bring the levels @xmath182 and @xmath183 to degeneracy for all atoms since @xmath184 can not be satisfied for all @xmath185 and @xmath186 at the same time .
on the other hand , one has a freedom in the choice of frequencies @xmath187 , provided the conditions ( [ eq : cond rwa 2d ] ) are satisfied .
we adopt the following choice _ |i & = & _ | = _
|i | = _ aux + _ |i | & = & _ aux - _ t , where @xmath22 is an arbitrary auxiliary frequency .
the hamiltonian ( [ eq : h rwa 2d ] ) then becomes h & = & _ i a_i^a_i + _ b_^b_+ _ e b^_e , i b_e , i + _ s b^_s , i b_s , i + & & + ( b^_e , i b_s , i + b^_s , i b_e , i ) + g ( b^_e , i b_g , i ( a_i + b _ ) + h.c . ) , [ eq : h rwa 2d rot ] where @xmath19 , @xmath20 and @xmath21 .
this leads to the equations of motion i _ e,|i| & = & _ e b_e,|i| + b_s,|i| + g b_g,|i|(a_|i + b_| ) + i _ g,|i| & = & g b_e,|i| ( a_|i^+ b_|^ ) + i _ s,|i| & = & _ s b_s,|i| + b_e,|i| + i _ |i & = & _ |i a_|i + g _
b^_g,|i b_e,|i + i _ | & = & _ | b_| + g _ i b^_g , i| b_e , i| , where the summation over @xmath26 and @xmath25 in the last two equations is emphasized . setting @xmath188 and substituting to the remaining equations yields i _ g,|i| & = & ( - ) ( a_|i^+ b_|^ ) ( a_|i + b_| ) b_g,|i| + ( - ) ( a_|i^+ b_|^ ) b_s,|i| + i _ s,|i| & = & _ s b_s,|i| + ( - ) b_s,|i| + ( - ) b_g,|i| ( a_|i + b_| ) + i _ |i & = & _
|i a_|i + _ ( - ) b_g,|i^b_g,|i ( a_|i + b _ ) + ( - ) b^_g,|i b_s,|i + i _ | & = & _ | b_| + _ i ( - ) b_g , i |^b_g , i | ( a_i + b_| ) + ( - ) b^_g , i | b_s , i | .
switching back to the pauli matrices representation , now in the @xmath189 basis , the effective hamiltonian reads h = _
i a_i^a_i + _ b_^b_+ ^z_i + ( ^+_i ( a_i + b _ ) + h.c . ) + f_i , [ eq : h eff rwa 2d app ] where _
| & = & _ s - + & = & - + f_|i | & = & ( _ s - ) .
the corresponding equations of motion for the operators read    [ eq : op eoms ] @xmath190 \sigma^-_{\bar{i } \bar{\nu } } - \tilde{g } \left ( a_{\bar{i } } + b_{\bar{\nu } } \right ) \sigma^z_{\bar{i } \bar{\nu } } \label{eq : op eoms sm } \\
i \dot{\sigma}^z_{\bar{i } \bar{\nu } } & = 2\tilde{g } \left [ \sigma^+_{\bar{i } \bar{\nu } } \left ( a_{\bar{i } } + b_{\bar{\nu } } \right ) - { \rm h.c .
} \right ] - i \gamma \left ( \sigma^z_{\bar{i } \bar{\nu } } + \mathds{1 } \right ) , \label{eq : op eoms sz}\end{aligned}\ ] ]    where _ at & = & _ s - + _ ph^l & = & _ l - + & = & - and we have introduced the cavity and spin decays @xmath191 which we take to be the same for all cavity modes and all spins respectively .
the matrix @xmath80 used in the stability study , equation ( [ eq : stability ] ) , can be simply obtained from the mf equations of motion ( [ eq : eoms mf pump real ] ) and reads m =    - & _
ph + |w & 0 & - & |_i + -_ph - |w & - & - & 0 & -|_r + -4|_r |s_y & -2 |w -4|_i |s_y & 0 & - ( _ at + 2 |||^2 ) & -2 |_i + -2 |w + 4|_r |s_x & 4|_i |s_x & ( _ at + 2 |||^2 ) & 0 & -2 |_r + 2 |s_y & 2 |s_x & 2 |_i & 2 |_r & 0    , where @xmath192 and @xmath78 are the steady state solutions , @xmath193 .
here we seek a perturbative solution of the algebraic steady state equations ( [ eq : spin conservation ] ) and ( [ eq : ss lneq0 d0 ] ) in the large @xmath29 limit .
this can be done using a perturbative ansatz for the variables of the form v = _
n=0^^-n v^(n ) = v^(0 ) + ^-1 v^(1 ) + ^-2 v^(2 ) + ... the set of equations of order @xmath194 read _
i^(0 ) w^(0 ) & = & 0 + _
r^(0 ) w^(0 ) & = & 0 + ( . _
i^(0).^2 + ._i^(0).^2 ) s_y^(0 ) & = & 0 + ( .
_ i^(0).^2 + ._i^(0).^2 ) s_x^(0 ) & = & 0 , [ eq : exp order -1 ] which yield the solution for @xmath195 . using this result ,
order @xmath196 equations simplify to      in order to proceed , we realize that the equation ( [ eq : ss lneq0 d0 w ] ) at order @xmath115 reads _
r^(1 ) s_y^(0 ) = - _ i^(1 ) s_x^(0 ) . substituting for @xmath198 from ( [ eq : exp order 0 ar],[eq : exp order 0 ai ] ) , it can be cast to the form - = . in order to simplify the treatment further
, we put @xmath70 which implies @xmath199 and by the sake of ( [ eq : exp order 0 ai ] ) @xmath200 .
we will use these solutions in what follows .                where @xmath207 and we have used the spin conservation @xmath208 . since @xmath209 , the solution ( [ eq : sol sx order 1a ] ) is valid for @xmath210 .
next , we remark , that the function @xmath211 is monotonously decreasing with the limit _
s_x,+^(0 ) ( ) = n > n , i.e. is unphysical .
we are thus left with the solution @xmath212 which is also monotonously decreasing function with the asymptotes _ 0 s_x,-^(0 ) ( ) & = & 0 + _
s_x,-^(0 ) ( ) & = & - n. it is thus clear that the solution @xmath213 is valid for @xmath214 $ ] , where @xmath215 is some critical value for which @xmath213 reaches the physically allowed maximum @xmath216 .
it is easy to find , that @xmath217 .
this completes the leading order solutions and yields the expressions ( [ eq : sx0 1]),([eq : sx0 2 ] ) .
the equations ( [ eq : exp order -1]),([eq : exp order 0]),([eq : exp order 1 ] ) yield a closed set for spin variables up to the order @xmath115 and for @xmath114 up to @xmath218 .
it is straightforward to find the solutions up to the respective order explicitly , giving however rather lengthy algebraic expressions .
these can be simplified in specific situations .
for example , as we discuss in the main text , when looking for solutions in the vicinity of the transition point @xmath219 , the leading order contribution to @xmath86 is of order @xmath218 , namely | |^2 = .
_ r^(1 ) .^2
+ o(^-3 ) , which gives the relation ( [ eq : a2 ] ) . similarly ,
the leading contribution to @xmath58 is of order @xmath196 yielding the expressions ( [ eq : w0 ] ) .


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