details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	2.50.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n145.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	SK90

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	2.48091 seconds
cpu usage	6.84094
user time	6.41258
system time	0.42836
max virtual memory	1.8279408E7
max residence set size	1228660.0

stage attributes

key	value
starexec-result	WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1))

output

WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1)) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1). (0) CpxTRS (1) RelTrsToTrsProof [UPPER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (2) CpxTRS (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1) (5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (6) TRS for Loop Detection (7) DecreasingLoopProof [LOWER BOUND(ID), 0 ms] (8) BEST (9) proven lower bound (10) LowerBoundPropagationProof [FINISHED, 0 ms] (11) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) (12) TRS for Loop Detection ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1). The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) transformed relative TRS to TRS ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1). The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsProof (FINISHED) A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match Bound [MATCHBOUNDS1,MATCHBOUNDS2] of 1. The certificate found is represented by the following graph. "[1, 2, 3, 4] {(1,2,[a_1|0]), (1,3,[b_1|1]), (2,2,[b_1|0]), (3,4,[b_1|1]), (4,2,[a_1|1]), (4,3,[b_1|1])}" ---------------------------------------- (4) BOUNDS(1, n^1) ---------------------------------------- (5) RelTrsToDecreasingLoopProblemProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) Transformed a relative TRS into a decreasing-loop problem. ---------------------------------------- (6) Obligation: Analyzing the following TRS for decreasing loops: The Runtime Complexity (full) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1). The TRS R consists of the following rules: a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: FULL ---------------------------------------- (7) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): The rewrite sequence a(b(x)) ->^+ b(b(a(x))) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,0]. The pumping substitution is [x / b(x)]. The result substitution is [ ]. popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runtime Complexity: TRS