fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
Smart+red compared to other tools («Surprise» 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 «Surprise» 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for GreatSPN, so there are 61 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 21 0 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 44 14
Smart+red > GreatSPN 22   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 41 17
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 21 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for ITS-Tools, so there are 61 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 0 0 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = ITS-Tools 3 Times tool wins 30 31
Smart+red > ITS-Tools 4   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < ITS-Tools 7 Times tool wins 12 49
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for smpt, so there are 61 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 0 0 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = smpt 1 Times tool wins 14 47
Smart+red > smpt 25   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < smpt 0 Times tool wins 22 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for Tapaal, so there are 61 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 0 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Tapaal 2 Times tool wins 13 48
Smart+red > Tapaal 4   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Tapaal 6 Times tool wins 21 40
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for LoLa+red, so there are 61 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 0 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LoLa+red 3 Times tool wins 26 35
Smart+red > LoLa+red 4   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LoLa+red 7 Times tool wins 9 52
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 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 0 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LTSMin+red 6 Times tool wins 30 31
Smart+red > LTSMin+red 6   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LTSMin+red 2 Times tool wins 38 23
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 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 0 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Marcie+red 6 Times tool wins 40 21
Smart+red > Marcie+red 6   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Marcie+red 3 Times tool wins 42 19
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 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 0 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = 2022-gold 1 Times tool wins 12 49
Smart+red > 2022-gold 7   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < 2022-gold 4 Times tool wins 14 47
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 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 0 47   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = BVT-2023 1 Times tool wins 0 61
Smart+red > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < BVT-2023 9 Times tool wins 0 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for LoLA, so there are 61 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 1 0 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LoLA 2 Times tool wins 14 47
Smart+red > LoLA 12   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LoLA 4 Times tool wins 9 52
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for LTSMin, so there are 61 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 22 0 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 44 16
Smart+red > LTSMin 18   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 43 17
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 22 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for Marcie, so there are 61 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 21 0 13   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 49 12
Smart+red > Marcie 23   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Marcie 0 Times tool wins 49 12
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 21 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 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 122 runs (61 for Smart+red and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 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 36 0 12   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart+red = Smart 0 Times tool wins 45 9
Smart+red > Smart 6   Shortest Execution Time
Smart+red < Smart 0 Times tool wins 49 5
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 36 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 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