fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
smart compared to other tools («All» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents smart' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

smart versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for LTSMin, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart LTSMin Both tools   smart LTSMin
All computed OK 51 59 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 281 87
smart > LTSMin 258   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 197 171
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 59 50 399


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where smart computed less values than LTSMin, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for Tapaal, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart Tapaal Both tools   smart Tapaal
All computed OK 154 60 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 201 168
smart > Tapaal 155   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 214 155
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 293 439


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where smart computed less values than Tapaal, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for LoLA, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart LoLA Both tools   smart LoLA
All computed OK 309 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 309 0
smart > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 309 0
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 489 458


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where smart computed less values than LoLA, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for M4M.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart M4M.full Both tools   smart M4M.full
All computed OK 182 117 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 299 127
smart > M4M.full 24   Shortest Execution Time
smart < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 264 162
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 86 331 372


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where smart computed less values than M4M.full, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for M4M.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart M4M.struct Both tools   smart M4M.struct
All computed OK 179 116 92   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 298 127
smart > M4M.struct 38   Shortest Execution Time
smart < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 268 157
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 84 327 374


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where smart computed less values than M4M.struct, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for ITS-Tools, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart ITS-Tools Both tools   smart ITS-Tools
All computed OK 30 244 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 309 244
smart > ITS-Tools 279   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 161 392
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 164 130 294


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where smart computed less values than ITS-Tools, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to ITS-Tools.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart ITS-Tools.L Both tools   smart ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 41 230 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 309 230
smart > ITS-Tools.L 268   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 174 365
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 156 147 302


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where smart computed less values than ITS-Tools.L, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.L wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for GreatSPN, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart GreatSPN Both tools   smart GreatSPN
All computed OK 8 283 296   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 58 534
smart > GreatSPN 5   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 53 539
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 201 106 257


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where smart computed less values than GreatSPN, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for TINA.tedd, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart TINA.tedd Both tools   smart TINA.tedd
All computed OK 17 297 292   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 304 302
smart > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 146 460
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 6 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 211 105 247


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than TINA.tedd, denote cases where smart computed less values than TINA.tedd, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for Irma.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart Irma.full Both tools   smart Irma.full
All computed OK 169 153 115   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 302 160
smart > Irma.full 25   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 251 211
Do not compete 172 0 8
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 112 300 346


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where smart computed less values than Irma.full, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for smart and 947 for Irma.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart Irma.struct Both tools   smart Irma.struct
All computed OK 170 153 115   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 303 159
smart > Irma.struct 24   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 255 207
Do not compete 172 0 8
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 112 301 346


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where smart computed less values than Irma.struct, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart