details

property	value
status	complete
benchmark	test829.xml
ran by	Akihisa Yamada
cpu timeout	1200 seconds
wallclock timeout	300 seconds
memory limit	137438953472 bytes
execution host	n142.star.cs.uiowa.edu
space	Rubio_04

run statistics

property	value
solver	AProVE
configuration	complexity
runtime (wallclock)	1.54177 seconds
cpu usage	3.40298
user time	3.2421
system time	0.160887
max virtual memory	1.8278388E7
max residence set size	231504.0

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# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1).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) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof [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 (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1). The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(X, s(Y))) -> f(c(s(X), Y)) g(c(s(X), Y)) -> f(c(X, s(Y))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (1) RelTrsToTrsProof (UPPER BOUND(ID)) transformed relative TRS to TRS ---------------------------------------- (2) Obligation: The Runtime Complexity (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(1, n^1). The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(X, s(Y))) -> f(c(s(X), Y)) g(c(s(X), Y)) -> f(c(X, s(Y))) S is empty. Rewrite Strategy: INNERMOST ---------------------------------------- (3) CpxTrsMatchBoundsTAProof (FINISHED) A linear upper bound on the runtime complexity of the TRS R could be shown with a Match-Bound[TAB_LEFTLINEAR,TAB_NONLEFTLINEAR] (for contructor-based start-terms) of 2. The compatible tree automaton used to show the Match-Boundedness (for constructor-based start-terms) is represented by: final states : [1, 2] transitions: c0(0, 0) -> 0 s0(0) -> 0 f0(0) -> 1 g0(0) -> 2 s1(0) -> 4 c1(4, 0) -> 3 f1(3) -> 1 s1(0) -> 6 c1(0, 6) -> 5 f1(5) -> 2 s1(4) -> 4 s2(0) -> 8 c2(8, 0) -> 7 f2(7) -> 2 s1(8) -> 4 f1(3) -> 2 ---------------------------------------- (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 (innermost) of the given CpxTRS could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, n^1). The TRS R consists of the following rules: f(c(X, s(Y))) -> f(c(s(X), Y)) popout

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

job log

popout

actions

all output return to Runtime Complexity: TRS Innermost