A Topological Approach for Computing Supremal Sublanguages for Some Language Equations in Supervisory Control Theory
Abstract
In this paper, we shall present a topological approach for the computation of some supremal sublanguages, often specified by language equations, which arise from the study of the supervisory control theory. The basic idea is to identify the solutions of the language equations as open sets for some (semi)-topologies. Then, the supremal sublanguages naturally correspond to the supremal open subsets, i.e., the interiors. This provides an elementary and uniform approach for computing various supremal sublanguages encountered in the supervisory control theory and is closely related to a theory of approximation, known as the rough set theory, in artificial intelligence.
keywords:
discrete event systems; supervisory control; rough set; topology; language equations; Kuratowski closure,
1 Introduction
The supervisory control theory (SCT) provides a rigorous framework for the automatic synthesis of correct-by-construction controllers. Given the models of the plant and the specification, the theory provides tools for the automatic synthesis of a supervisor, i.e., a discrete-event controller, such that the closed-loop system is safe, i.e., bad state is never reachable, and non-blocking, i.e., goal state is always reachable [1].
The foundation of SCT is largely built based on the theory of formal languages and automata [2]. In fact, quite many important properties such as controllability, normality, -closure and so on [1], which are used for characterizing the existence of a supervisor, can be naturally specified with language equations, by using the operations of prefix-closure, concatenation, intersection, projection, inverse projection and so on. The computation of the supremal sublanguages specified by these language equations is a central task in supervisor synthesis [1].
Up to now, quite a few papers have been devoted to the computation of the supremal sublanguages that occur in SCT, either for specific properties with guaranteed finite convergence [1], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], or in a systematic approach [11], [12], which sometimes has to sidestep the finite convergence issue in the discussions.
In this paper, we adopt the tool of (semi)-topology for computing some supremal sublanguages which occur in the supervisory control theory. The basic idea is to identify the solutions of the defining language equations as open sets for some (semi)-topologies. Then, the supremal sublanguages naturally correspond to the supremal open subsets, i.e., the interiors. Essentially, several properties of interest, such as controllability and normality, are open subsets for different topologies. This naturally leads to the perspective that “supervisors are open subsets”. We hope this work may help to point out the usefulness of elementary topology, which has not found serious applications in the supervisory control theory, for the synthesis of supervisors.
This paper is to be organized as follows. Section 2 provides some preliminaries on the supervisory control theory and others. In Section 3, we introduce the basic tool of (semi)-topology to support the computation of some supremal sublanguages. In Section 4, we provide examples to illustrate the topological techniques. We conclude the paper in Section 5.
2 Mathematical Preliminaries
In this section, we recall most of the notations and terminologies that will be used in this paper, from the supervisory control theory and others.
Let denote an alphabet. For any two languages over , their concatenation is denoted by . We write to denote their set-theoretic difference. The right quotient of by is denoted by , where denotes the string concatenation of and . The prefix-closure of is denoted by . The Kleene closure of is denoted by . We sometimes denote the complement of w.r.t. as , i.e., .
Let . We define natural projection recursively as follows.
-
1.
, where denotes the empty string,
-
2.
for any and any , if , and if .
The definition of is extended to in such a way that for any . The inverse projection is defined such that for any . Similarly, we define for any , as a natural extension.
A binary relation is said to be an independence relation (over ) if it is both irreflexive and symmetric. is irreflexive if, for any , . is symmetric if, for any , if and only if . For any , and are said to be independent symbols.
Two strings over are said to be trace equivalent with respect to (the independence relation) , denoted by , if there exist strings for some such that , and for each , there exist some and such that , and . Intuitively, two strings are trace equivalent if each one of them can be obtained from the other by a sequence of permutations of adjacent symbols that are independent.
The set of trace equivalent strings of for is said to be the trace closure of with respect to , denoted by . The trace closure of a language is defined to be the language .
We shall remark that the operations of taking complement, intersection, prefix-closure, projection and inverse projection preserve regularity of languages. However, the trace closure operation does not preserve the regularity of languages [15].
Several important language-theoretic properties in SCT are formulated as language equations given below.
Definition 1 (Normality).
Let and . is normal w.r.t. if .
Definition 2 (Controllability).
Let and . is said to be controllable w.r.t. if .
Definition 3 (-closedness).
Let . is said to be -closed if .
Definition 4 (Trace-closedness).
Let . is said to be trace-closed w.r.t. an independence relation over if
Definition 5 (Prefix-closedness).
Let . is said to be prefix-closed if .
The following straightforward result holds.
Lemma 1.
is prefix-closed iff is -closed.
3 Semi-Topologies for Computation
Let be any language. A function is said to be a semi-topological closure operator (on ) if it satisfies the following four axioms S1, S2, S3, S4: for any ,
-
(S1):
,
-
(S2):
,
-
(S3):
,
-
(S4):
,
where S1, S2, S3 are adopted from [16]. We here remark that S3 here only requires to hold, compared with the stronger requirement that in the Kuratowski closure axioms that define a topological closure operator [17].
The semi-topological closure operator on induces a (unique) semi-topology with being the family of open sets such that the following three conditions T1, T2, T3 hold.
-
(T1):
,
-
(T2):
is closed under arbitrary unions,
-
(T3):
.
On the other hand, is said to be closed if . is the family of closed sets. In particular, is open (respectively, closed) iff is closed (respectively, open), in the semi-topology .
The semi-topological interior operator can be defined and is dual to the semi-topological closure operator , with for any . It satisfies the following four conditions S1’, S2’, S3’, S4’: for any ,
-
(S1’):
,
-
(S2’):
,
-
(S3’):
,
-
(S4’):
,
The conditions S1’, S2’, S3’, S4’ are, respectively, dual to and can be obtained from the axioms S1, S2, S3, S4.
In the following subsections, we consider four increasingly more powerful techniques, however, with the same basic topological idea.
3.1 Supremal Solution of A Topologized Equation
We have the next useful result, which is a straightforward consequence of the semi-topology endowed on .
Theorem 1.
There exists the unique supremal open subset of for any language . Indeed, the supremal open subset of is the interior of .
Remark: To make the paper more self-contained, we here briefly explain why the interior is indeed the supremal open subset of in the semi-topology . Let be any given open subset of . We have , from , and thus . It then follows that . is clearly an open subset of .
Indeed, in the terminology of the rough set theory [18], is the largest under-approximation of in the collection of open subsets of .
The next result could be more convenient in some applications, which is a direct consequence of Theorem 1.
Corollary 1.
If the family of open sets corresponds to the family of closed sets for the semi-topology induced by on , then the supremal closed subset of is .
Corollary 1 states that, if the semi-topology induced by on satisfies the following property (): the family of open sets corresponds to the family of closed sets, then is also the largest under-approximation of in the collection of closed subsets of . We shall refer to any (semi-topological) closure operator that satisfies the property () as a clopen closure operator.
Theorem 1 can be used in the following way. Suppose we can formulate a property as the solutions of an equation , with and a function . If is a semi-topological closure operator, then this equation states that is equal to its interior , that is, is open, in the semi-topology induced by on . Then, the supremal solution of this equation exists and is equal to the interior of .
Corollary 1 can be used in a similar manner. Suppose we can formulate a property as the solutions of an equation , with and a function . If is a clopen closure operator, then the supremal solution of this equation exists and is equal to the interior of .
Remark: If is a clopen closure operator, then ( is a closed set) if and only if ( is an open set).
In the rest of this paper, for generality, we mostly only consider equations of the form . However, we shall work with the equation if is a clopen closure operator and it is more convenient to do so.
3.2 Supremal Solution of System of Topologized Equations
Let be any given language and let be any semi-topological closure operator on , for each . Let .
Consider a system of language equations in the topologized forms
with . Thus, any solution of this system is an open set in the semi-topology induced by on , for each . By T2, the supremal solution exists, and it can be successively approximated with the iteration scheme
where , and each function is a semi-topological interior operator that is dual to , with for any . The correctness of the iteration scheme is shown in the following.
Theorem 2.
Let denote the supremal solution of the system of equations. If the iteration scheme
, with
terminates with , where , then .
Proof: The descending chain
is obtained. We first show that for each .
By definition, for each . Thus, for each , implies . The claim , for each , follows from . Thus, we have .
Next, we show . By definition, . Thus, we have , for each . That is, for each . With , we know that is also a solution of the system of equations. Thus, .
3.3 Supremal Solution of System of Topologized Equations with Search Space Relaxation
In some cases, the topological approach given above cannot be directly applied. This is so, for example, when we need to search for the supremal solution of , while the topological characterization only applies to . For example, consider the following system of equations
where . As before, is any given language and is a semi-topological closure operator (on ), for each . Here, . The supremal solution for this system exists (see Proposition 2 for a generalization).
In this case, the use of the weakened requirement (for the search space) allows one to apply the topological techniques developed before for . However, this relaxation only computes the supremal solution of from the topologized equations. The solution needs to be constrained as we only ask for the supremal solution of , for which it holds that . This leads to a natural iteration scheme that successively approximates the supremal solution of , subjected to the language equations for . Now, consider a more general setup, where we have a system of equations
where . Here, and are the same as before.
We assume is a semi-topological closure operator on some such that the equation has an equivalent dual for some semi-topological closure operator . Let .
Then, the following iteration scheme () works for the system , by replacing with .
-
1.
Let and .
-
2.
Solve the following system of equations
where . The supremal solution exists, as for the system , and can be computed with the iteration scheme as given below.
where . Let . Let and repeat step 2).
Remark: The system contains the system as a special case. Indeed, let be defined such that for any . is a semi-topological closure operator on and the equation has an equivalent dual , where is a semi-topological closure operator on defined such that for any . Indeed, we have iff iff iff iff iff . The system also contains the system as a special case, by setting for any .
Before we show the correctness of the iteration scheme given above, we first show some useful results.
Proposition 1.
Suppose is a clopen closure operator on , then has an equivalent dual for some semi-topological closure operator .
Proof: Suppose is a clopen closure operator on . Then, for any language , satisfies the equation (that is, is a closed set) iff satisfies the equation (that is, is an open set). We can choose .
Remark: being a clopen closure operator on is a sufficient, but in general not necessary, condition for to have an equivalent dual , for some semi-topological closure operator . For example, has an equivalent dual but the prefix closure operator is a semi-topological closure operator on that is not clopen.
We have the next useful result.
Lemma 2.
Suppose the equation has an equivalent dual , where and are semi-topological closure operators on , then holds for any index set , if each is a closed set, i.e., .
Proof:
Each satisfies the equation . Thus, for each . That is, each is an open set for the semi-topology on induced by . It follows that is also an open set and thus it satisfies the equation . It then follows that satisfies the equation , that is, is a closed set in the semi-topology induced by . The statement holds even when is an empty index set, for which we have .
We now show the following result.
Proposition 2.
The supremal solution for the system exists.
Proof: Since is a semi-topological closure operator on , we have ; we have that is a solution of the system . Let be any (non-empty) set of solutions of the system . We show that is also a solution of the system . We only need to show that, for each ,
We have that . Thus,
It follows that
Thus,
.
By Lemma 2, we have that
This finishes the proof.
The correctness of the successive approximation scheme is shown below.
Theorem 3.
Let denote the supremal solution of the system of equations. If the iteration scheme () terminates with , where , then .
Proof: The descending chain
is obtained from the iteration scheme. We first show that for each .
To that end, we shall show that, for any , implies . Since , we only need to show that implies , where is the supremal solution of the system of equations
where .
Suppose , we have . Since is the supremal solution of the system and , we conclude that is a solution of the system . Thus, . Consequently, we have .
This finishes the proof of the claim that, for any , implies . Now, since , we conclude that for each .
We have . Thus, we have . We recall that is the supremal solution of the system of equations
where , which is computed with the iteration
with . Since the computation terminates, there is some such that . Thus,
Let . We have . Since has an equivalent dual , we have . Thus, from , we obtain . We then conclude that
where . Thus, is a solution of the system and we have . This, when combined with the fact that , shows that . This finishes the proof.
3.4 Supremal Solution of Mixed System of Topologized Equations
In general, consider the system of equations
with . Let be any given language and be a semi-topological closure operator (on ), for each . For each , let be a semi-topological closure operator on some such that the equation has an equivalent dual for some semi-topological closure operator on . Here, for each .
Remark: The system is a straightforward generalization of the system . In particular, if , then the system degenerates into the system .
By an analysis which is similar to the proof of Proposition 2, the supremal solution of the system exists. A strategy to solve the system is to iteratively solve each equation, by using the technique developed in Section 3.3. This leads to a natural iteration scheme shown below.
Given any equation with . The supremal solution exists and is denoted by for convenience, which can be computed with the technique developed in Section 3.3. Then, the system is solved with the following iteration scheme
,
with . The correctness of the iteration scheme is shown below.
Theorem 4.
Let denote the supremal solution of the system of equations. If the iteration scheme
, with
terminates with , where , then .
Proof: The descending chain
is obtained from the iteration scheme. We first show that for each .
To that end, we shall show that, for any , implies . Indeed, suppose . Then, is a solution of the system of equations
where . In particular, we have is a solution of the equation with . Thus, . It follows that is a solution of the equation with . We then have . The same reasoning shows that .
The claim that for each then follows from . Thus, .
We have , for each . Thus, we have , for each . Thus, is a solution of the system and .
4 Illustrative Examples
In this section, we shall provide some examples to illustrate the previously presented ideas.
4.1 Computation With A Topologized Equation
In this subsection, we present some example properties which can be specified with a topologized equation, including the properties of normality, -closedness, prefix-closedness and trace-closedness. It thus follows that the supremal sublanguages for these properties can be expressed with the same formula given in Section 3.1.
4.1.1 Supremal Normal Sublanguage
Let
be the collection of normal sublanguages of with respect to . Without loss of generality, we may assume that , since any satisfies the property that . We shall endow a (semi)-topology on . Let denote a function, where, for any , . is a (semi)-topological closure operator on (and is a clopen closure operator).
We reformulate the elements of as follows: with ,
iff iff iff iff iff iff
Thus, exists in and
4.1.2 Supremal -closed Sublanguage
Let
denote the collection of -closed sublanguages of . Without loss of generality, we assume . We now endow a different topology on . Let denote a function defined such that , for any . is a (semi)-topological closure operator on .
We shall reformulate the elements of in the following manner: with ,
iff iff iff iff iff iff
Thus, exists in and we have
As a special case, we consider . Then, the supremal prefix-closed sublanguage of is , by Lemma 1. In particular, the (semi)-topological closure operator for this case is denoted by , where .
4.1.3 Supremal Trace-closed Sublanguage
Let be an independence relation over . Let
denote the collection of trace-closed sublanguages of . We now endow a topology on . Let be a map such that for any . is a (semi)-topological closure operator. The complement of a trace-closed language w.r.t. is also trace-closed. Thus, is a clopen closure operator; exists in and
.
However, the trace closure operator does not always preserve the regularity of languages. Thus, can be non-regular, even if is regular.
4.2 Computation With A System of Topologized Equations
In this subsection, we use the property of prefix-closed controllability to illustrate the computation with a system of topologized equations, as explained in Section 3.2, and explain an acceleration technique.
4.2.1 Supremal Prefix-closed Controllable Sublanguage
Let and let
denote the collection of prefix-closed controllable sublanguages of with respect to . Without loss of generality, we assume . is the solution set of a system of two language equations
with .
We need to reformulate the two language equations in the following manner:
1) iff iff
2) with , iff iff iff iff iff .
We shall endow a (semi)-topology on . We let be a function defined such that , for any . is indeed a (semi)-topological closure operator on . Thus, can be reformulated as the solution set of a system of two topologized equations
with . Then, the iteration scheme
where , can be applied. Thus, we have
by straightforward applications of interior constructions. We can simplify the expression of as follows.
Lemma 3.
.
Proof: We now use the rule and obtain the following
We then apply the rule and obtain the simplified expression .
is by construction prefix-closed, i.e., . The next result shows that is indeed the fixed-point, i.e., .
Lemma 4.
or, equivalently, .
Proof: We need to show . We only need to show
Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists some string and some string such that .
We analyze based on . There are only two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) cases.
-
1.
-
2.
, and there exist some such that and .
The first case is in contradiction with the supposition that . Thus, we only need to consider the second case that .
However, from , we know that , which again leads to contradiction.
4.2.2 Topology Optimization for Prefix-closed Controllability
In certain cases, a system of topologized equations can be reduced to an equivalent topologized equation by setting up an optimized semi-topology. It follows that the technique of Section 3.1 can be used for solving such a system of topologized equations as well, as an acceleration technique (for chain termination).
It is possible to obtain an optimized semi-topology for the computation of as follows.
With , we have
and iff iff iff iff iff iff iff ,
where is a map defined such that, for any , . is a (semi)-topological closure operator on .
Thus, exists in and
4.3 Computation With A System of Topologized Equations With Search Space Relaxation
In this subsection, we show that the computation of the supremal controllable sublanguage, without the prefix-closedness property, can be treated as solving a system of topologized equations with search space relaxation.
Let
.
denote the collection of controllable sublanguages of w.r.t. . Without loss of generality, we assume . The elements of can be reformulated as below (see Section 4.2): with ,
iff iff
4.4 Computation With A Mixed System of Topologized Equations
In this subsection, we explain the application of a mixed system of topologized equations to the computation of the supremal controllable and normal sublanguage [1].
Let
denote the collection of sublanguages of whose prefix-closure is normal w.r.t. . Now, let
is commonly referred to as the set of controllable and normal sublanguages of [1], [6]. Now, without loss of generality, we shall assume and . The elements of are formulated as the solutions of the system
with . Then, we can apply the technique developed in Section 3.4. Here, we directly use an acceleration technique, with an optimized topology. The key result is the following [19].
Lemma 5.
Let . We have that and if and only if .
With , we have
iff iff iff iff iff iff
Let denote a function defined such that for any . is a (semi)-topological closure operator over , with .
Thus, the elements of can be reformulated as the solutions of the system
with . We now apply the technique of Section 3.4 to this system, which leads to the iteration scheme
, with
In particular, is the supremal solution of the equation , with . It can be solved with the iteration scheme (see Section 3.3).
, where
where is the supremal solution of the system
with . can be computed with the scheme
, where
We have
is by construction prefix-closed, i.e., . The next result shows that is indeed the fixed-point, i.e., .
Lemma 6.
or, equivalently, .
Proof: We need to show . We only need to show
.
Suppose, on the contrary, that there exists some string
and some string , such that
We analyze based on . There are two (not necessarily mutually exclusive) cases.
-
1.
-
2.
, and also there exist some such that and .
The first case is in contradiction with
since (with the rule )
.
Thus, we only need to consider the second case. However, from , we conclude, with , that
.
However, this again contradicts with
Thus, we have .
In summary, we have the iteration equation
, with .
is computed with the iteration equation
, with
5 Conclusion
In this work, we have presented a topological technique for computing some supremal sublanguages, often specified by language equations, that arise from the study of the supervisory control theory. Theorem 1 of Section 3.1 is central to the rough set theory [18], which is a formal theory of approximation. This work can thus be viewed as a further development of the rough set theory in solving language equations.
The topological technique provides an elementary and uniform approach for the computation, if we do not care about the finite convergence property. It is of interest to know if the topological perspective can also be useful for establishing the finite convergence property, which is left open.
References
- [1] W. M. Wonham, K. Cai. Supervisory control of discrete-event systems, Springer, 2018.
- [2] J. E. Hopcroft, J. D. Ullman, Introduction to automata theory, languages, and computation, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1979.
- [3] R. D. Brandt, V. Garg, R. Kumar, F. Lin, S. I. Marcus, W. M. Wonham. “Formulas for calculating supremal controllable and normal sublanguages”, Systems and Control Letters, 15(2): 111-117, 1990.
- [4] W. M. Wonham, P. J. Ramadge. “On the supremal controllable sublanguage of a given language”, SIAM J. Control Optim., 25(3): 637-659, 1987.
- [5] K. Cai, R. Zhang, W. M. Wonham, “Relative observability of discrete-event systems and its supremal sublanguages”, IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control 60 (3): 659-670, 2014.
- [6] S. Hashtrudi Zad, M. Moosaei, W. M. Wonham, “On computation of supremal controllable, normal sublanguages”, Systems and Control Letters, 54(9): 871-876, 2005.
- [7] R. M. Ziller, J. E. R. Cury, “On the supremal -closed and the supremal -closed and -controllable sublanguages of a given language”, 11th International Conference on Analysis and Optimization of Systems: Discrete Event Systems, LNCIS, Vol. 199, pp. 80-85, 1994.
- [8] E. Chen, S. Lafortune, “On nonconflicting languages that arise in supervisory control of discrete event systems”, Systems and Control Letters, 17(2):105-113, 1991.
- [9] H. Cho, S. I. Marcus, “On supremal languages of classes of sublanguages that arise in supervisor synthesis problems with partial observations”, Mathematics of Control, Signal and Systems 2, 47–69, 1989.
- [10] J. Komenda, J. H. van Schuppen, “Control of discrete-event systems with partial observations using coalgebra and coinduction”, Discret. Event Dyn. Syst. 15(3): 257-315, 2005.
- [11] S. Hashtrudi Zad, R. H. Kwong and W. M. Wonham, “Supremum operators and computation of supremal elements in system theory”, SIAM J. Control Optim., vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 695-709, 1999.
- [12] R. Kumar, V. K. Garg. “Extremal solutions of inequations over lattices with applications to supervisory control”, Theoretical Computer Science, 148(1): 67-92, 1995.
- [13] T. Moor, C. Baier, T.S. Yoo, F. Lin, and S. Lafortune, “On the computation of supremal sublanguages relevant to supervisory control”, Workshop on Discrete Event Systems, pp. 175–180, 2012.
- [14] N. Yevtushenko, T. Villa, R.K. Brayton, “A. Petrenko, A.L. Sangiovanni-Vincentelli, “Solution of parallel language equations for logic synthesis”, in: International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, ACM, pp. 103-110, 2001.
- [15] I. J. Aalbersberg, E. Welzl. “Trace languages defined by regular string languages”, R.A.I.R.O. Theoretical Informatics and Applications, 20(2): 103-119, 1986.
- [16] D. Peled. “A generalized closure and complement phenomenon”, Discrete Mathematics, Vol. 50, pp. 285-293, 1984.
- [17] I. M. James, General topology and homotopy theory, Springer, 1984.
- [18] Z. Pawlak. “Rough sets”, International Journal of Computer & Information Sciences, 11(5): 341-356, 1982.
- [19] D. Wang, L. Lin, Z. Li, W. M. Wonham. “State-based control of discrete-event systems under partial observation”, IEEE Access, 6: 42084–42093, 2018