/export/starexec/sandbox2/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat /export/starexec/sandbox2/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) 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# AProVE Commit ID: 48fb2092695e11cc9f56e44b17a92a5f88ffb256 marcel 20180622 unpublished dirty The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). (0) CpxIntTrs (1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 827 ms] (2) BOUNDS(INF, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: f0(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f2(A, G, C, D, E, F)) :|: 0 >= A f0(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f0(A, B, -(1) + C, G, 0, H)) :|: A >= 1 && C >= 3 f0(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f0(-(1) + A, B, I, G, H, F)) :|: 0 >= H + 1 && A >= 1 f0(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f0(-(1) + A, B, I, G, H, F)) :|: H >= 1 && A >= 1 f1(A, B, C, D, E, F) -> Com_1(f0(A, B, C, D, E, F)) :|: TRUE The start-symbols are:[f1_6] ---------------------------------------- (1) Loat Proof (FINISHED) ### Pre-processing the ITS problem ### Initial linear ITS problem Start location: f1 0: f0 -> f2 : B'=free, [ 0>=A ], cost: 1 1: f0 -> f0 : C'=-1+C, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: 1 2: f0 -> f0 : A'=-1+A, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: 1 3: f0 -> f0 : A'=-1+A, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: 1 4: f1 -> f0 : [], cost: 1 Removed unreachable and leaf rules: Start location: f1 1: f0 -> f0 : C'=-1+C, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: 1 2: f0 -> f0 : A'=-1+A, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: 1 3: f0 -> f0 : A'=-1+A, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: 1 4: f1 -> f0 : [], cost: 1 ### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ### Accelerating simple loops of location 0. Accelerating the following rules: 1: f0 -> f0 : C'=-1+C, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: 1 2: f0 -> f0 : A'=-1+A, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: 1 3: f0 -> f0 : A'=-1+A, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: 1 Accelerated rule 1 with metering function -2+C, yielding the new rule 5. Accelerated rule 2 with metering function A, yielding the new rule 6. Accelerated rule 3 with metering function A, yielding the new rule 7. Nested simple loops 2 (outer loop) and 5 (inner loop) with metering function -1+A, resulting in the new rules: 8, 9. Nested simple loops 3 (outer loop) and 5 (inner loop) with metering function -1+A, resulting in the new rules: 10, 11. Removing the simple loops: 1 2 3. Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible): Start location: f1 5: f0 -> f0 : C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: -2+C 6: f0 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: A 7: f0 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: A 8: f0 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: 1+(-1+A)*free_4-A 9: f0 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: -1+(-1+A)*free_4+C-A 10: f0 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: 1+(-1+A)*free_7-A 11: f0 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: -1+C+(-1+A)*free_7-A 4: f1 -> f0 : [], cost: 1 Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules): Start location: f1 4: f1 -> f0 : [], cost: 1 12: f1 -> f0 : C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: -1+C 13: f1 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 14: f1 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 15: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_4-A 16: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: (-1+A)*free_4+C-A 17: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_7-A 18: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: C+(-1+A)*free_7-A Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost): Start location: f1 12: f1 -> f0 : C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: -1+C 13: f1 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 14: f1 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 15: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_4-A 16: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: (-1+A)*free_4+C-A 17: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_7-A 18: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: C+(-1+A)*free_7-A ### Computing asymptotic complexity ### Fully simplified ITS problem Start location: f1 12: f1 -> f0 : C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ A>=1 && C>=3 ], cost: -1+C 13: f1 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_4, D'=free_5, E'=free_3, [ 0>=1+free_3 && A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 14: f1 -> f0 : A'=0, C'=free_7, D'=free_8, E'=free_6, [ free_6>=1 && A>=1 ], cost: 1+A 15: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_4-A 16: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ], cost: (-1+A)*free_4+C-A 17: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_7-A 18: f1 -> f0 : A'=1, C'=2, D'=free_1, E'=0, F'=free_2, [ C>=3 && -1+A>=1 && free_7>=3 ], cost: C+(-1+A)*free_7-A Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 12 Solved the limit problem by the following transformations: Created initial limit problem: -2+C (+/+!), A (+/+!), -1+C (+) [not solved] removing all constraints (solved by SMT) resulting limit problem: [solved] applying transformation rule (C) using substitution {C==n,A==1} resulting limit problem: [solved] Solution: C / n A / 1 Resulting cost -1+n has complexity: Poly(n^1) Found new complexity Poly(n^1). Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 15 Solved the limit problem by the following transformations: Created initial limit problem: 2+A*free_4-A-free_4 (+), -1+A (+/+!), -2+free_4 (+/+!) [not solved] applying transformation rule (C) using substitution {free_4==3} resulting limit problem: 1 (+/+!), -1+A (+/+!), -1+2*A (+) [not solved] applying transformation rule (B), deleting 1 (+/+!) resulting limit problem: -1+A (+/+!), -1+2*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] Solved the limit problem by the following transformations: Created initial limit problem: 2+A*free_4-A-free_4 (+), -1+A (+/+!), -2+free_4 (+/+!) [not solved] removing all constraints (solved by SMT) resulting limit problem: [solved] applying transformation rule (C) using substitution {A==2,free_4==3+n} resulting limit problem: [solved] Solution: A / 2 free_4 / 3+n Resulting cost 3+n has complexity: Unbounded Found new complexity Unbounded. Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n): Complexity: Unbounded Cpx degree: Unbounded Solved cost: 3+n Rule cost: 2+(-1+A)*free_4-A Rule guard: [ -1+A>=1 && free_4>=3 ] WORST_CASE(INF,?) ---------------------------------------- (2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)