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

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 16 224 248   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 19 558
smart > GreatSPN 86   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 206 371
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 147 132 325


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 1 644 339   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 1 996
smart > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 13 Times tool wins 82 915
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 471 17 1


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 1 641 330   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-LoLa 0 Times tool wins 5 989
smart > ITS-LoLa 9   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-LoLa 13 Times tool wins 352 642
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 472 17 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 1 623 324   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 5 971
smart > Tapaal 15   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 13 Times tool wins 100 876
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 466 37 6


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 1 620 331   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 2 971
smart > 2019-Gold 8   Shortest Execution Time
smart < 2019-Gold 13 Times tool wins 128 845
Do not compete 193 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 464 38 8


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