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

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 11 230 228   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 13 564
smart > GreatSPN 90   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 9 Times tool wins 183 394
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 152 126 326


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 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 1 642 320   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 1 988
smart > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 18 Times tool wins 86 903
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 15 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 478 15 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 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 1 641 313   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-LoLa 0 Times tool wins 1 987
smart > ITS-LoLa 7   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-LoLa 18 Times tool wins 327 661
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 16 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 478 15 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 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 1 665 314   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 3 1009
smart > Tapaal 6   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 18 Times tool wins 63 949
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 478 7 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 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 1 663 315   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 1 1009
smart > 2019-Gold 5   Shortest Execution Time
smart < 2019-Gold 18 Times tool wins 69 941
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 476 7 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 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