details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	revlist.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n137.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Rubio_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	291.787 seconds
cpu usage	1125.48
user time	1108.79
system time	16.6933
max virtual memory	2.2089648E7
max residence set size	1.4923544E7

stage attributes

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

output

WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.xml # AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).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 ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: rev1(0, nil) -> 0 rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X) rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L) rev(nil) -> nil rev(cons(X, L)) -> cons(rev1(X, L), rev2(X, L)) rev2(X, nil) -> nil rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L)))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (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 (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: rev1(0, nil) -> 0 rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X) rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L) rev(nil) -> nil rev(cons(X, L)) -> cons(rev1(X, L), rev2(X, L)) rev2(X, nil) -> nil rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L)))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (3) DecreasingLoopProof (LOWER BOUND(ID)) The following loop(s) give(s) rise to the lower bound Omega(n^1): The rewrite sequence rev2(X, cons(Y, L)) ->^+ rev(cons(X, rev(rev2(Y, L)))) gives rise to a decreasing loop by considering the right hand sides subterm at position [0,1,0]. The pumping substitution is [L / cons(Y, L)]. The result substitution is [X / Y]. ---------------------------------------- (4) Complex Obligation (BEST) ---------------------------------------- (5) Obligation: Proved the lower bound n^1 for the following obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF). The TRS R consists of the following rules: rev1(0, nil) -> 0 rev1(s(X), nil) -> s(X) rev1(X, cons(Y, L)) -> rev1(Y, L) rev(nil) -> nil popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runtime Complexity: TRS Innermost