details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	#4.35.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	Strategy_removed_AG01

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	2.11022615433 seconds
cpu usage	5.436999383
max memory	7.6249088E8

stage attributes

key	value
output-size	9954
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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(EXP, INF).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, 385 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(true, y) -> y and(false, y) -> false eq(nil, nil) -> true eq(cons(t, l), nil) -> false eq(nil, cons(t, l)) -> false eq(cons(t, l), cons(t', l')) -> and(eq(t, t'), eq(l, l')) eq(var(l), var(l')) -> eq(l, l') 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(t', s')) -> and(eq(t, t'), eq(s, s')) eq(apply(t, s), lambda(x, t)) -> false eq(lambda(x, t), var(l)) -> false eq(lambda(x, t), apply(t, s)) -> false eq(lambda(x, t), lambda(x', t')) -> and(eq(x, x'), eq(t, t')) if(true, var(k), var(l')) -> var(k) if(false, var(k), var(l')) -> var(l') ren(var(l), var(k), var(l')) -> if(eq(l, l'), var(k), var(l')) 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(true, y) -> y and(false, y) -> false eq(nil, nil) -> true eq(cons(t, l), nil) -> false eq(nil, cons(t, l)) -> false eq(cons(t, l), cons(t', l')) -> and(eq(t, t'), eq(l, l')) eq(var(l), var(l')) -> eq(l, l') 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(t', s')) -> and(eq(t, t'), eq(s, s')) eq(apply(t, s), lambda(x, t)) -> false eq(lambda(x, t), var(l)) -> false eq(lambda(x, t), apply(t, s)) -> false eq(lambda(x, t), lambda(x', t')) -> and(eq(x, x'), eq(t, t')) if(true, var(k), var(l')) -> var(k) if(false, var(k), var(l')) -> var(l') ren(var(l), var(k), var(l')) -> if(eq(l, l'), var(k), var(l')) 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 ---------------------------------------- (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runti Compl Full Rewri 10127