/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1), O(n^1)) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, max(102, 102 + Arg_0)). (0) CpxIntTrs (1) Koat2 Proof [FINISHED, 57 ms] (2) BOUNDS(1, max(102, 102 + Arg_0)) (3) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 133 ms] (4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: start(A) -> Com_1(a(A)) :|: A >= 1 start(A) -> Com_1(a(100)) :|: A >= 100 && A <= 100 a(A) -> Com_1(a(A - 1)) :|: A >= 1 The start-symbols are:[start_1] ---------------------------------------- (1) Koat2 Proof (FINISHED) YES( ?, max([102, 102+Arg_0]) {O(n)}) Initial Complexity Problem: Start: start Program_Vars: Arg_0 Temp_Vars: Locations: a, start Transitions: a(Arg_0) -> a(Arg_0-1):|:1 <= Arg_0 start(Arg_0) -> a(Arg_0):|:1 <= Arg_0 start(Arg_0) -> a(100):|:Arg_0 <= 100 && 100 <= Arg_0 Timebounds: Overall timebound: max([102, 102+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 2: a->a: max([100, 100+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 0: start->a: 1 {O(1)} 1: start->a: 1 {O(1)} Costbounds: Overall costbound: max([102, 102+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 2: a->a: max([100, 100+Arg_0]) {O(n)} 0: start->a: 1 {O(1)} 1: start->a: 1 {O(1)} Sizebounds: `Lower: 2: a->a, Arg_0: 0 {O(1)} 0: start->a, Arg_0: 1 {O(1)} 1: start->a, Arg_0: 100 {O(1)} `Upper: 2: a->a, Arg_0: max([100, Arg_0]) {O(n)} 0: start->a, Arg_0: Arg_0 {O(n)} 1: start->a, Arg_0: 100 {O(1)} ---------------------------------------- (2) BOUNDS(1, max(102, 102 + Arg_0)) ---------------------------------------- (3) Loat Proof (FINISHED) ### Pre-processing the ITS problem ### Initial linear ITS problem Start location: start 0: start -> a : [ A>=1 ], cost: 1 1: start -> a : A'=100, [ A==100 ], cost: 1 2: a -> a : A'=-1+A, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1 ### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ### Accelerating simple loops of location 1. Accelerating the following rules: 2: a -> a : A'=-1+A, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1 Accelerated rule 2 with metering function A, yielding the new rule 3. Removing the simple loops: 2. Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible): Start location: start 0: start -> a : [ A>=1 ], cost: 1 1: start -> a : A'=100, [ A==100 ], cost: 1 3: a -> a : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: A Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules): Start location: start 0: start -> a : [ A>=1 ], cost: 1 1: start -> a : A'=100, [ A==100 ], cost: 1 4: start -> a : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 5: start -> a : A'=0, [ A==100 ], cost: 101 Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost): Start location: start 4: start -> a : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1+A ### Computing asymptotic complexity ### Fully simplified ITS problem Start location: start 4: start -> a : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1+A Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 4 Solved the limit problem by the following transformations: Created initial limit problem: A (+/+!), 1+A (+) [not solved] removing all constraints (solved by SMT) resulting limit problem: [solved] applying transformation rule (C) using substitution {A==n} resulting limit problem: [solved] Solution: A / n Resulting cost 1+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: 1+n Rule cost: 1+A Rule guard: [ A>=1 ] WORST_CASE(Omega(n^1),?) ---------------------------------------- (4) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)