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

Introduction

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

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for smart and 1018 for GreatSPN, so there are 1018 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 2 417 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 6 558
smart > GreatSPN 1   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 113 Times tool wins 16 548
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 23 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 319 120 336


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for smart and 1018 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1018 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 0 577 32   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 8 716
smart > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 115 Times tool wins 33 691
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 23 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 438 75 217


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-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for smart and 1018 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 1018 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-LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart ITS-LoLa Both tools   smart ITS-LoLa
All computed OK 2 744 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-LoLa 0 Times tool wins 37 854
smart > ITS-LoLa 12   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-LoLa 110 Times tool wins 48 843
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 23 7 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 605 72 50


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

memory chart time chart

smart versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for smart and 1018 for Tapaal, so there are 1018 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 0 835 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 59 923
smart > Tapaal 10   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 115 Times tool wins 35 947
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 23 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 653 34 2


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 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for smart and 1018 for 2019-Gold, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to 2019-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart 2019-Gold Both tools   smart 2019-Gold
All computed OK 0 849 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 62 934
smart > 2019-Gold 10   Shortest Execution Time
smart < 2019-Gold 115 Times tool wins 38 958
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 23 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 652 19 3


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 2019-Gold, denote cases where smart computed less values than 2019-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, 2019-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart