/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1))
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat
# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty


The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, max(3 + -1 * Arg_0 + Arg_1, 2)).

(0) CpxIntTrs
(1) Koat2 Proof [FINISHED, 145 ms]
(2) BOUNDS(1, max(3 + -1 * Arg_0 + Arg_1, 2))
(3) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 125 ms]
(4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)


----------------------------------------

(0)
Obligation:
Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
sumto(A, B) -> Com_1(end(A, B)) :|: A >= B + 1
sumto(A, B) -> Com_1(sumto(A + 1, B)) :|: B >= A
start(A, B) -> Com_1(sumto(A, B)) :|: TRUE

The start-symbols are:[start_2]


----------------------------------------

(1) Koat2 Proof (FINISHED)
YES( ?, max([2, 3+Arg_1-Arg_0]) {O(n)})



Initial Complexity Problem:

  Start:  start  

  Program_Vars:  Arg_0, Arg_1  

  Temp_Vars:    

  Locations:  end, start, sumto  

  Transitions:

  start(Arg_0,Arg_1) -> sumto(Arg_0,Arg_1):|:

  sumto(Arg_0,Arg_1) -> end(Arg_0,Arg_1):|:Arg_1+1 <= Arg_0

  sumto(Arg_0,Arg_1) -> sumto(Arg_0+1,Arg_1):|:Arg_0 <= Arg_1  



Timebounds: 

  Overall timebound: max([2, 3+Arg_1-Arg_0]) {O(n)}

  2: start->sumto: 1 {O(1)}

  0: sumto->end: 1 {O(1)}

  1: sumto->sumto: max([0, 1+Arg_1-Arg_0]) {O(n)}



Costbounds:

  Overall costbound: max([2, 3+Arg_1-Arg_0]) {O(n)}

  2: start->sumto: 1 {O(1)}

  0: sumto->end: 1 {O(1)}

  1: sumto->sumto: max([0, 1+Arg_1-Arg_0]) {O(n)}



Sizebounds:

`Lower:

  2: start->sumto, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)}

  2: start->sumto, Arg_1: Arg_1 {O(n)}

  0: sumto->end, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)}

  0: sumto->end, Arg_1: Arg_1 {O(n)}

  1: sumto->sumto, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)}

  1: sumto->sumto, Arg_1: Arg_1 {O(n)}

`Upper:

  2: start->sumto, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)}

  2: start->sumto, Arg_1: Arg_1 {O(n)}

  0: sumto->end, Arg_0: max([Arg_0, Arg_0+max([0, 1+Arg_1-Arg_0])]) {O(n)}

  0: sumto->end, Arg_1: Arg_1 {O(n)}

  1: sumto->sumto, Arg_0: Arg_0+max([0, 1+Arg_1-Arg_0]) {O(n)}

  1: sumto->sumto, Arg_1: Arg_1 {O(n)}


----------------------------------------

(2)
BOUNDS(1, max(3 + -1 * Arg_0 + Arg_1, 2))

----------------------------------------

(3) Loat Proof (FINISHED)


### Pre-processing the ITS problem ###



Initial linear ITS problem

   Start location: start

      0: sumto -> end : [ A>=1+B ], cost: 1

      1: sumto -> sumto : A'=1+A, [ B>=A ], cost: 1

      2: start -> sumto : [], cost: 1



Removed unreachable and leaf rules:

   Start location: start

      1: sumto -> sumto : A'=1+A, [ B>=A ], cost: 1

      2: start -> sumto : [], cost: 1



### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###



Accelerating simple loops of location 0.

   Accelerating the following rules:

      1: sumto -> sumto : A'=1+A, [ B>=A ], cost: 1



   Accelerated rule 1 with metering function 1-A+B, yielding the new rule 3.

   Removing the simple loops: 1.



Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible):

   Start location: start

      3: sumto -> sumto : A'=1+B, [ B>=A ], cost: 1-A+B

      2: start -> sumto : [], cost: 1



Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):

   Start location: start

      2: start -> sumto : [], cost: 1

      4: start -> sumto : A'=1+B, [ B>=A ], cost: 2-A+B



Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost):

   Start location: start

      4: start -> sumto : A'=1+B, [ B>=A ], cost: 2-A+B



### Computing asymptotic complexity ###



Fully simplified ITS problem

   Start location: start

      4: start -> sumto : A'=1+B, [ B>=A ], cost: 2-A+B



Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 4

   Solved the limit problem by the following transformations:

      Created initial limit problem:

      1-A+B (+/+!), 2-A+B (+) [not solved]



      removing all constraints (solved by SMT)

      resulting limit problem: [solved]



      applying transformation rule (C) using substitution {A==0,B==n}

      resulting limit problem:

      [solved]



   Solution:

      A / 0

      B / n

   Resulting cost 2+n has complexity: Poly(n^1)



Found new complexity Poly(n^1).



Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n):

   Complexity:  Poly(n^1)

   Cpx degree:  1

   Solved cost: 2+n

   Rule cost:   2-A+B

   Rule guard:  [ B>=A ]



WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?)


----------------------------------------

(4)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)