details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	ma96.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n034.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Rubio_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	2.40775609016 seconds
cpu usage	6.679686892
max memory	9.90437376E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	10226
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?)

output

/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). (0) CpxTRS (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (2) TRS for Loop Detection (3) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (4) BEST (5) proven lower bound (6) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (7) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) (8) TRS for Loop Detection (9) DecreasingLoopProof [FINISHED, 440 ms] (10) BOUNDS(EXP, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: and(false, false) -> false and(true, false) -> false and(false, true) -> false and(true, true) -> true eq(nil, nil) -> true eq(cons(T, L), nil) -> false eq(nil, cons(T, L)) -> false eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp)) eq(var(L), var(Lp)) -> eq(L, Lp) eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) -> false eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp)) eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp)) if(true, var(K), var(L)) -> var(K) if(false, var(K), var(L)) -> var(L) ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) -> if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp)) ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) -> apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S)) ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) -> lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: and(false, false) -> false and(true, false) -> false and(false, true) -> false and(true, true) -> true eq(nil, nil) -> true eq(cons(T, L), nil) -> false eq(nil, cons(T, L)) -> false eq(cons(T, L), cons(Tp, Lp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(L, Lp)) eq(var(L), var(Lp)) -> eq(L, Lp) eq(var(L), apply(T, S)) -> false eq(var(L), lambda(X, T)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), var(L)) -> false eq(apply(T, S), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(S, Sp)) eq(apply(T, S), lambda(X, Tp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), var(L)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), apply(Tp, Sp)) -> false eq(lambda(X, T), lambda(Xp, Tp)) -> and(eq(T, Tp), eq(X, Xp)) if(true, var(K), var(L)) -> var(K) if(false, var(K), var(L)) -> var(L) ren(var(L), var(K), var(Lp)) -> if(eq(L, Lp), var(K), var(Lp)) ren(X, Y, apply(T, S)) -> apply(ren(X, Y, T), ren(X, Y, S)) ren(X, Y, lambda(Z, T)) -> lambda(var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), ren(X, Y, ren(Z, var(cons(X, cons(Y, cons(lambda(Z, T), nil)))), T))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL popout

output may be truncated. 'popout' for the full output.

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runti Compl Full Rewri 10127