|
|
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | <pre> | | <pre> |
| − | This page is no longer maintained. The entry point to the complexity category is here: [http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/users/georg/cbr/competition/ complexity competiton].or the time beeing. | + | This page is no longer maintained. |
| | </pre> | | </pre> |
| | | | |
| − | | + | The entry point to the complexity category is here: [http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/users/georg/cbr/competition/ complexity competition]. |
| − | == Overview of the Event ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | It is a challenging topic to automatically determine upper bounds on
| |
| − | the complexity of rewrite systems. By complexity of a TRS, we mean
| |
| − | the maximal length of derivations, where either no restrictions on the
| |
| − | initial terms are present ("derivational complexity") or only
| |
| − | constructor based terms are considered ("runtime complexity"). See
| |
| − | (Hirokawa, Moser, 2008) for further reading on the notion of runtime
| |
| − | complexity. Additionally one distinguishes between complexities
| |
| − | induced by full rewriting as opposed to complexities induced by
| |
| − | specific strategies, as for example innermost rewriting.
| |
| − | We propose four sub-categories:
| |
| − | # Derivational Complexity (DC),
| |
| − | # innermost Derivational Complexity (iDC),
| |
| − | # Runtime Complexity (RC), and
| |
| − | # innermost Runtime Complexity (iRC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Syntax/Semantics for Input/Output ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | As competition semantics, we propose to focus on <em>polynomial</em>
| |
| − | bounds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Input Format ===
| |
| − | Problems will be given in the newly TPDB-format, cf.
| |
| − | [http://www.termination-portal.org/wiki/XTC_Format_Specification], where
| |
| − | the XML-element ''problem'' will have the type ''complexity'' given.
| |
| − | Further, depending on the category DC, iDC, RC and iRC, the attributes
| |
| − | ''strategy'' and ''startterm'' will be set to FULL/INNERMOST and full/constructor-based
| |
| − | respectively.
| |
| − | In particluar, this allows the upload of one single tool for all categories the authors want to participate in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | === Output Format ===
| |
| − | The output format is adapted so that additional | |
| − | information on the asymptotic complexity is given for lower as well
| |
| − | as upper bounds. Hence the output written to the first line of STDOUT
| |
| − | shall be a complexity statement according to the following grammar:
| |
| − | | |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | S -> NO | MAYBE | YES( F, F) | YES( ?, F) | YES( F, ?)
| |
| − | F -> O(1) | O(n^Nat) | POLY
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | where "Nat" is a non-zero natural number and YES(F1, F2) means F2 is
| |
| − | upper bound and that F1 is a lower-bound. "O(n^k)" is the usual big-Oh
| |
| − | notation and "POLY" indicates an unspecified polynomial. Either of
| |
| − | the functions F1, F2 (but not both) may be replaced by ``don't know'',
| |
| − | indicated by ?. Any remaining output on STDOUT will be considered as
| |
| − | proof output and has to follow the normal rules for the competition.
| |
| − | | |
| − | <em>Example</em>: Consider R= {a(a(x)) -> b(c(x)), b(b(x)) -> a(c(x)), c(c(x)) -> a(b(x))}. Within
| |
| − | the derivational complexity category a syntactically correct output would be "YES(O(n^2),POLY)".
| |
| − | (Whether this output would also indicate a correct tool, is another question.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Scoring ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | Currently we focus on (polynomial) <em>upper</em> bounds. As
| |
| − | the output format indicates, this restriction should be lifted
| |
| − | later, see below. In order to take into account the quality of the upper
| |
| − | bound provided by the different tools, we propose the following
| |
| − | scoring algorithm, where we suppose the number of competitors is x.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Firstly, for each TRS the competing tools are ranked, where constant
| |
| − | complexity, i.e., output "YES(?,O(1))" is best and "MAYBE", "NO" or
| |
| − | time-out is worst.
| |
| − | As long as the output is of form "YES(?,O(n^k))" or "YES(?,POLY)" the
| |
| − | rank of the tool defines the number of points. More precisely the
| |
| − | best tool gets x+1 points, the second gets x points and so on. On the
| |
| − | other hand a negative output ("MAYBE", "NO" or time-out) gets 0
| |
| − | points.
| |
| − | If two or more tools would get the same rank, the rank of the
| |
| − | remaining tools is adapted in the usual way.
| |
| − | | |
| − | Secondly, all resulting points for all considered systems are summed
| |
| − | up and the contestant with the highest number of points wins. If this
| |
| − | cannot establish a winner, the total number of wins is counted. If
| |
| − | this still doesn't produce a winner, we give up and provide two (or
| |
| − | more) winners.
| |
| − | | |
| − | The maximal allowed CPU time is 60 seconds.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Problem selection ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | We propose to run subcategories DC and iDC
| |
| − | on all TRS and SRS families from the newly organised TPDB, after
| |
| − | the selection function defined below has been applied.
| |
| − | For categories RC and iRC, we propose to run the competition on all TRS families
| |
| − | after application of the selection function stated below:
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Selection function ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the following, we denote by ''select'' the function that relates
| |
| − | each family from the TPDB to the number of randomly chosen examples within this family as defined
| |
| − | for the termination competition.
| |
| − | The idea is to make ''select''
| |
| − | aware of different difficulties of proving complexity bounds. We do so by
| |
| − | # partitioning each family ''F'' into ''n'' different sets ''F = F_1 \cup ... \cup F_n'', where the sets ''F_i'' may be seen as collections of TRSs similar in difficulty. For this years competition we propose following partitioning of a family ''F'':
| |
| − | #:* '''subcategories RC, iRC and iDC:''' we propose to partition each family into
| |
| − | #:*:(i) those upon which a polynomial bound could be shown automatically in last years competition (denoted by ''F_auto'' below) and
| |
| − | #:*:(ii) those where a polynomial bound could not be shown (''F_nonauto'').
| |
| − | #:* '''subcategory DC:''' as above, but we split (ii) into duplicating TRS (''F_duplicating'') and non-duplicating TRSs (note that any TRS from (i) is non-duplicating)
| |
| − | # In accordance to the above described partitioning, we define a probability distribution ''p'' on ''F'' such that ''p(F_1) + ... p(F_n) = 1''. For this year's competition we propose the following distribution:
| |
| − | #:for all subcategories and families ''F'', we propose ''p(F_auto) = 0.4'' and ''p(F_nonauto) = 0.6'' (For the category DC, we additionally set ''p(F_duplicating) = 0.0''). That is, we want to consider 40% examples that could be solved automatically in last years competition, and 60% of examples that could not be solved automatically. Additionally for DC we want to exclude duplicating TRS as those admit exponential derivational complexity. Based on the probability distribution ''p'' we define the extended selection function ''select_comp(F,i) = min(|F_i|, p(i) * select(F))''. Here ''|F_i|'' denotes the size of ''F_i''.
| |
| − | # From each partition ''F_i'' of a family ''F'', we randomly select ''select_comp(F,i)'' examples.
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Test Cases ==
| |
| − | In the following test cases we restrict to full rewriting.
| |
| − | <em>
| |
| − | test cases - derivational complexity
| |
| − | </em>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | R = {a(b(x)) -> b(a(x))}, expected output "YES(?,O(n^2))" or "YES(O(n^1),O(n^2))" or "YES(O(n^2),O(n^2))"
| |
| − | | |
| − | R= {a(a(x)) -> b(c(x)), b(b(x)) -> a(c(x)), c(c(x)) -> a(b(x))}, expected output "YES(O(n^2),?)" or "YES(?,?)"
| |
| − | | |
| − | R= {+(s(x),+(y,z)) -> +(x,+(s(s(y)),z)), +(s(x),+(y,+(z,w))) -> +(x,+(z,+(y,w)))}, expected output "YES(?,?)"
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <em>test cases - runtime complexity </em>
| |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | R = {a(b(x)) -> b(b(a(x)))}, expected output "YES(?,O(n^1))" or "YES(O(n^1),O(n^1))"
| |
| − | | |
| − | R = {plus(0,y) -> y, plus(s(x),y) -> s(plus(x,y)), mul(0,y) -> 0, mul(s(x),y) -> plus(mul(x,y),y)}, expected output "YES(?,O(n^2))" or "YES(O(n^1),O(n^2))" or "YES(O(n^2),O(n^2))"
| |
| − | | |
| − | R = {f(x,0) -> s(0), f(s(x),s(y)) -> s(f(x,y)), g(0,x) -> g(f(x,x),x)}, expected output "YES(?,O(n^1))" or "YES(O(n^1),O(n^1))"
| |
| − | | |
| − | R= {f(0) -> c, f(s(x)) -> c(f(x),f(x))}, expected output "YES(?,?)"
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the following test cases we restrict to innermost rewriting.
| |
| − | | |
| − | <em>test cases - derivational complexity </em>
| |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | R = {f(x) -> c(x,x)}, expected output "YES(O(n^1),O(n^1))" or "YES(?,O(n^1))"
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <em>test cases - runtime complexity </em>
| |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | R= {f(x) -> c(x,x), g(0) -> 0, g(s(x)) -> f(g(x))}, expected output "YES(O(n^1),O(n^1))" or "YES(?,O(n^1))"
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | | |
| − | == Participation ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Requirements ===
| |
| − | In order to participate in the competition, the '''sources''' of your tool have to be '''publicly available'''.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Participants ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | Insert your name here if you intend to participate:
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== Competition 2009 ====
| |
| − | * M. Avanzini, G. Moser, A. Schnabl ([http://cl-informatik.uibk.ac.at/software/tct TCT])
| |
| − | * J. Waldmann ([[Tools:Matchbox]]) (derivational complexity for full rewriting)
| |
| − | | |
| − | ==== Competition 2008 ====
| |
| − | * M. Avanzini, G. Moser, A. Schnabl (TCT)
| |
| − | * M. Korp, C. Sternagel, H. Zankl (CaT)
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Complexity proof techniques ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | A list of the complexity proof techniques applied by the participants of the competition can be found at [[Complexity_Techniques]]
| |
| − | | |
| − | == Discussion ==
| |
| − | | |
| − | === lower bounds ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | In the future the tools should also be able to provide certificates on the
| |
| − | lower bound. This would imply to extend the grammar as follows
| |
| − | | |
| − | <pre>
| |
| − | F -> O(1) | O(n^Nat) | POLY | EXP | INF
| |
| − | </pre>
| |
| − | | |
| − | such that e.g. "YES(EXP,?)" indicated an exponential lower-bound,
| |
| − | or "YES(INF,INF)" indicated non-termination.
| |
| − | | |
| − | (JW: I don't like the looks of an answer starting "YES" and indicating non-termination. See "BOUNDS" proposal below.)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Scoring (proposals):
| |
| − | | |
| − | * as for the upper bound the lower bound certificate should be ranked and both ranks could be compared lexicographically (with the upper bound as the primary criterion)
| |
| − | | |
| − | * JW prefers: don't define some artificial total order on the bounds. The natural partial ordering is given by the inclusion relation on the sets of functions that are described by the bounds. This inclusion can be computed from
| |
| − | <PRE>
| |
| − | (low1, up1) "is better than" (low2, up2) iff low1 >= low2 and up1 <= up2
| |
| − | </PRE>Then for each problem, answer A gets awarded k points if A is strictly better than k of the answers, where "no answer" counts as BOUNDS(LIN,INF), and "strictly better = better and not equal".
| |
| − | This would imply that if all answers are identical, then no-one gets a point.
| |
| − | Perhaps we want to add one virtual prover that always says"BOUNDS(LIN,INF)" -
| |
| − | so anyone who gives a better answer, gets at least one point.
| |
| − | | |
| − | === Concrete syntax ===
| |
| − | | |
| − | * JW would prefer the following output format as it is easier to parse:
| |
| − | | |
| − | F -> POLY(Nat) | POLY(?)
| |
| − | | |
| − | Here "POLY(k)" abbreviates "O(n^k)" and "POLY(?)" denotes an unspecified
| |
| − | polynomial.<br>
| |
| − | | |
| − | <em>resolved</em>
| |
| − | | |
| − | * JW: I'm not giving up ... one more reason against the O(n^k) syntax: 3. it cannot be used for lower bounds, as we would need Omega instead of Oh. (The other two reasons are: 2. needlessly complicated, and 1. n is an undefined variable)
| |
| − | | |
| − | * proposal to replace YES/NO/MAYBE by BOUNDS: http://dev.aspsimon.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=85#c4
| |
| − | | |
| − | LN: I'd like to support this notation. But I think "?" for an unknown bound is unnecessary. It can always be replaced by POLY(0) for the lower
| |
| − | bound and INF for the upper bound. [[User:Noschinski|Noschinski]] 13:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
| |
| − | | |
| − | [[Category:Categories]]
| |
