/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), ?)
proof of /export/starexec/sandbox2/benchmark/theBenchmark.koat
# AProVE Commit ID: 794c25de1cacf0d048858bcd21c9a779e1221865 marcel 20200619 unpublished dirty


The runtime complexity of the given CpxIntTrs could be proven to be BOUNDS(n^1, INF).

(0) CpxIntTrs
(1) Loat Proof [FINISHED, 312 ms]
(2) BOUNDS(n^1, INF)


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

(0)
Obligation:
Complexity Int TRS consisting of the following rules:
f0(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f1(A, B, C, D)) :|: TRUE
f1(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f1(A + B, B + C, C + D, D - 1)) :|: A >= 1
f1(A, B, C, D) -> Com_1(f1(A - 1, B, C, D)) :|: A >= 1

The start-symbols are:[f0_4]


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

(1) Loat Proof (FINISHED)


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



Initial linear ITS problem

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1

      1: f1 -> f1 : A'=A+B, B'=C+B, C'=C+D, D'=-1+D, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1

      2: f1 -> f1 : A'=-1+A, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1



Checking for constant complexity:

   The following rule is satisfiable with cost >= 1, yielding constant complexity:

      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1



### Simplification by acceleration and chaining ###



Accelerating simple loops of location 1.

   Accelerating the following rules:

      1: f1 -> f1 : A'=A+B, B'=C+B, C'=C+D, D'=-1+D, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1

      2: f1 -> f1 : A'=-1+A, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1



   Found no metering function for rule 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: f0

      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1

      1: f1 -> f1 : A'=A+B, B'=C+B, C'=C+D, D'=-1+D, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1

      3: f1 -> f1 : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: A



Chained accelerated rules (with incoming rules):

   Start location: f0

      0: f0 -> f1 : [], cost: 1

      4: f0 -> f1 : A'=A+B, B'=C+B, C'=C+D, D'=-1+D, [ A>=1 ], cost: 2

      5: f0 -> f1 : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1+A



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

   Start location: f0

      5: f0 -> f1 : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1+A



### Computing asymptotic complexity ###



Fully simplified ITS problem

   Start location: f0

      5: f0 -> f1 : A'=0, [ A>=1 ], cost: 1+A



Computing asymptotic complexity for rule 5

   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),?)


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

(2)
BOUNDS(n^1, INF)