fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
smart compared to other tools («All» models, Liveness)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2020

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the Liveness 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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for smart and 1229 for GreatSPN, so there are 1229 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 47 252 217   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 49 467
smart > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 104 412
Do not compete 213 0 0
Error detected 12 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 181 193 559


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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2458 runs (1229 for smart and 1229 for Tapaal, so there are 1229 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 36 612 228   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 38 838
smart > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 86 790
Do not compete 213 0 0
Error detected 12 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 488 137 252


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