fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
Smart+red compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityCardinality)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how Smart+red do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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+red' 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+red versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for GreatSPN, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red GreatSPN Both tools   Smart+red GreatSPN
All computed OK 725 1 523   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 1139 524
Smart+red > GreatSPN 400   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < GreatSPN 8 Times tool wins 1035 628
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 733 4


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+red computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where Smart+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red ITS-Tools Both tools   Smart+red ITS-Tools
All computed OK 2 8 1324   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = ITS-Tools 135 Times tool wins 549 1124
Smart+red > ITS-Tools 59   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < ITS-Tools 140 Times tool wins 203 1470
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 4


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+red computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where Smart+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus smpt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for smpt, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to smpt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red smpt Both tools   Smart+red smpt
All computed OK 3 6 1161   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = smpt 53 Times tool wins 313 1358
Smart+red > smpt 255   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < smpt 188 Times tool wins 274 1397
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 6 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+red computed more values than smpt, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than smpt, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, smpt wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for Tapaal, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red Tapaal Both tools   Smart+red Tapaal
All computed OK 0 13 1308   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Tapaal 47 Times tool wins 193 1485
Smart+red > Tapaal 80   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Tapaal 225 Times tool wins 211 1467
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 0 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+red computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where Smart+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for LoLa+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red LoLa+red Both tools   Smart+red LoLa+red
All computed OK 0 11 1328   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LoLa+red 74 Times tool wins 541 1135
Smart+red > LoLa+red 43   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LoLa+red 215 Times tool wins 280 1396
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 0 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+red computed more values than LoLa+red, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than LoLa+red, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLa+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for LTSMin+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red LTSMin+red Both tools   Smart+red LTSMin+red
All computed OK 0 8 1328   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LTSMin+red 182 Times tool wins 564 1109
Smart+red > LTSMin+red 71   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LTSMin+red 79 Times tool wins 420 1253
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 4


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+red computed more values than LTSMin+red, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than LTSMin+red, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for Marcie+red, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red Marcie+red Both tools   Smart+red Marcie+red
All computed OK 0 9 1324   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Marcie+red 174 Times tool wins 1130 544
Smart+red > Marcie+red 76   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Marcie+red 86 Times tool wins 729 945
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 1 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+red computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than Marcie+red, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for 2022-gold, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red 2022-gold Both tools   Smart+red 2022-gold
All computed OK 0 13 1300   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = 2022-gold 60 Times tool wins 160 1518
Smart+red > 2022-gold 120   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < 2022-gold 180 Times tool wins 187 1491
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 0 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+red computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than 2022-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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for BVT-2023, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, Smart+red is compared to BVT-2023. It is a good way to check how Smart+red compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When Smart+red is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red BVT-2023 Both tools   Smart+red BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 13 1352   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = BVT-2023 33 Times tool wins 0 1678
Smart+red > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < BVT-2023 275 Times tool wins 0 1678
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 0 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+red computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than BVT-2023, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for LoLA, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red LoLA Both tools   Smart+red LoLA
All computed OK 106 9 1074   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LoLA 46 Times tool wins 544 1130
Smart+red > LoLA 302   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LoLA 132 Times tool wins 336 1338
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 10 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 98 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+red computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for LTSMin, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red LTSMin Both tools   Smart+red LTSMin
All computed OK 826 0 670   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 1002 661
Smart+red > LTSMin 136   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LTSMin 28 Times tool wins 1033 630
Do not compete 0 11 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 824 4


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+red computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where Smart+red 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for Marcie, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red Marcie Both tools   Smart+red Marcie
All computed OK 996 1 442   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Marcie 1 Times tool wins 1532 134
Smart+red > Marcie 213   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Marcie 8 Times tool wins 1323 343
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 1005 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+red computed more values than Marcie, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than Marcie, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart+red versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3356 runs (1678 for Smart+red and 1678 for Smart, so there are 1678 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Smart+red to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart+red Smart Both tools   Smart+red Smart
All computed OK 1051 1 486   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Smart 0 Times tool wins 1243 379
Smart+red > Smart 84   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Smart 0 Times tool wins 1246 376
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 9 5 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1054 4


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+red computed more values than Smart, denote cases where Smart+red computed less values than Smart, 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+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart