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

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for ITS-Tools, so there are 49 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 1 5 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 7 5
smart > ITS-Tools 6   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 7 5
Do not compete 13 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 14 24


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 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 49 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 0 1 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 5 3
smart > ITS-Tools.M 7   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 5 3
Do not compete 13 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 13 28


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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for LTSMin, so there are 49 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 1 1 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 3 5
smart > LTSMin 6   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 3 5
Do not compete 0 0 13
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 1 28


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 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for Tapaal, so there are 49 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 5 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 5 2
smart > Tapaal 2   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 6 1
Do not compete 13 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 18 29


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 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for enPAC, so there are 49 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 6 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 7 0
smart > enPAC 1   Shortest Execution Time
smart < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 7 0
Do not compete 0 0 13
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 6 29


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 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for GreatSPN, so there are 49 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 0 2 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 0 9
smart > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 0 9
Do not compete 13 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 13 27


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 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for TINA.tedd, so there are 49 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 1 3 6   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 7 3
smart > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 4 6
Do not compete 13 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 14 26


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 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for smart and 49 for 2018-Gold, so there are 49 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 0 3 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 0 10
smart > 2018-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 0 10
Do not compete 13 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 13 26


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