/export/starexec/sandbox/solver/bin/starexec_run_complexity /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat /export/starexec/sandbox/output/output_files -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WORST_CASE(NON_POLY, ?) proof of /export/starexec/sandbox/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat # AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(INF, INF). (0) CpxIntTrs (1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 411 ms] (2) BOUNDS(INF, INF) ---------------------------------------- (0) Obligation: Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules: f14(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) -> Com_1(f14(A - 1, B - 1, C + 1, H, E, F, G)) :|: A >= 1 && H >= 1 f14(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) -> Com_1(f14(A - 1, B, C, H, E, F, G)) :|: 0 >= H && A >= 1 && A >= B + 1 f24(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) -> Com_1(f24(A, B, C, D, E, F, G)) :|: TRUE f26(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) -> Com_1(f29(A, B, C, D, E, F, G)) :|: TRUE f14(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) -> Com_1(f24(A, B, C, D, E, F, G)) :|: 0 >= A f0(A, B, C, D, E, F, G) -> Com_1(f14(2 * I + 1, H, 0, D, H, 2 * I + 1, I)) :|: H >= 1 && 2 * I >= 0 The start-symbols are:[f0_7] ---------------------------------------- (1) Loat Proof (FINISHED) ### Pre-processing the ITS problem ### Initial linear ITS problem Start location: f0 0: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, B'=-1+B, C'=1+C, D'=free, [ A>=1 && free>=1 ], cost: 1 1: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, D'=free_1, [ 0>=free_1 && A>=1 && A>=1+B ], cost: 1 4: f14 -> f24 : [ 0>=A ], cost: 1 2: f24 -> f24 : [], cost: 1 3: f26 -> f29 : [], cost: 1 5: f0 -> f14 : A'=1+2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 ], cost: 1 Checking for constant complexity: The following rule is satisfiable with cost >= 1, yielding constant complexity: 5: f0 -> f14 : A'=1+2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 ], cost: 1 Removed unreachable and leaf rules: Start location: f0 0: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, B'=-1+B, C'=1+C, D'=free, [ A>=1 && free>=1 ], cost: 1 1: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, D'=free_1, [ 0>=free_1 && A>=1 && A>=1+B ], cost: 1 4: f14 -> f24 : [ 0>=A ], cost: 1 2: f24 -> f24 : [], cost: 1 5: f0 -> f14 : A'=1+2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 ], cost: 1 ### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ### Accelerating simple loops of location 0. Accelerating the following rules: 0: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, B'=-1+B, C'=1+C, D'=free, [ A>=1 && free>=1 ], cost: 1 1: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, D'=free_1, [ 0>=free_1 && A>=1 && A>=1+B ], cost: 1 Accelerated rule 0 with metering function A, yielding the new rule 6. Found no metering function for rule 1. Removing the simple loops: 0. Accelerating simple loops of location 1. Accelerating the following rules: 2: f24 -> f24 : [], cost: 1 Accelerated rule 2 with NONTERM, yielding the new rule 7. Removing the simple loops: 2. Accelerated all simple loops using metering functions (where possible): Start location: f0 1: f14 -> f14 : A'=-1+A, D'=free_1, [ 0>=free_1 && A>=1 && A>=1+B ], cost: 1 4: f14 -> f24 : [ 0>=A ], cost: 1 6: f14 -> f14 : A'=0, B'=-A+B, C'=C+A, D'=free, [ A>=1 && free>=1 ], cost: A 7: f24 -> [6] : [], cost: NONTERM 5: f0 -> f14 : A'=1+2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 ], cost: 1 Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules): Start location: f0 4: f14 -> f24 : [ 0>=A ], cost: 1 10: f14 -> [6] : [ 0>=A ], cost: NONTERM 5: f0 -> f14 : A'=1+2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 ], cost: 1 8: f0 -> f14 : A'=2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, D'=free_1, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && 0>=free_1 && 1+2*free_2>=1+free_3 ], cost: 2 9: f0 -> f14 : A'=0, B'=-1+free_3-2*free_2, C'=1+2*free_2, D'=free, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && free>=1 ], cost: 2+2*free_2 Removed unreachable locations (and leaf rules with constant cost): Start location: f0 10: f14 -> [6] : [ 0>=A ], cost: NONTERM 5: f0 -> f14 : A'=1+2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 ], cost: 1 8: f0 -> f14 : A'=2*free_2, B'=free_3, C'=0, D'=free_1, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && 0>=free_1 && 1+2*free_2>=1+free_3 ], cost: 2 9: f0 -> f14 : A'=0, B'=-1+free_3-2*free_2, C'=1+2*free_2, D'=free, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && free>=1 ], cost: 2+2*free_2 Eliminated locations (on tree-shaped paths): Start location: f0 11: f0 -> [6] : A'=0, B'=-1+free_3-2*free_2, C'=1+2*free_2, D'=free, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && free>=1 ], cost: NONTERM ### Computing asymptotic complexity ### Fully simplified ITS problem Start location: f0 11: f0 -> [6] : A'=0, B'=-1+free_3-2*free_2, C'=1+2*free_2, D'=free, E'=free_3, F'=1+2*free_2, G'=free_2, [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && free>=1 ], cost: NONTERM Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 11 Guard is satisfiable, yielding nontermination Resulting cost NONTERM has complexity: Nonterm Found new complexity Nonterm. Obtained the following overall complexity (w.r.t. the length of the input n): Complexity: Nonterm Cpx degree: Nonterm Solved cost: NONTERM Rule cost: NONTERM Rule guard: [ free_3>=1 && 2*free_2>=0 && free>=1 ] NO ---------------------------------------- (2) BOUNDS(INF, INF)