fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
smart compared to other tools («Known» models, UpperBounds)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for ITS-Tools, so there are 969 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 38 193 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 303 233
smart > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 3 Times tool wins 169 367
Do not compete 179 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 120 144 326


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.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 969 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.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart ITS-Tools.M Both tools   smart ITS-Tools.M
All computed OK 19 215 320   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 307 250
smart > ITS-Tools.M 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools.M 3 Times tool wins 194 363
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 140 123 306


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.M, denote cases where smart computed less values than ITS-Tools.M, 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.M wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for LoLA, so there are 969 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 4 570 290   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 323 590
smart > LoLA 46   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LoLA 3 Times tool wins 177 736
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 423 37 23


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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for LTSMin, so there are 969 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 0 446 287   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 70 719
smart > LTSMin 53   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LTSMin 3 Times tool wins 128 661
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 446 0 0


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 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for Tapaal, so there are 969 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 1 609 322   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 39 913
smart > Tapaal 17   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 3 Times tool wins 136 816
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 432 4 14


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 enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for enPAC, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart enPAC Both tools   smart enPAC
All computed OK 343 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 343 0
smart > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 343 0
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 523 446


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 enPAC, denote cases where smart computed less values than enPAC, 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, enPAC wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for GreatSPN, so there are 969 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 12 221 329   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 51 513
smart > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 60 504
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 148 119 298


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 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for smart and 969 for 2018-Gold, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart 2018-Gold Both tools   smart 2018-Gold
All computed OK 6 551 273   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 51 843
smart > 2018-Gold 61   Shortest Execution Time
smart < 2018-Gold 3 Times tool wins 66 828
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 408 43 38


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 2018-Gold, denote cases where smart computed less values than 2018-Gold, 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, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart