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

Introduction

This page presents how Smart do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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' 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 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 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 4 16 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 19 22
Smart > GreatSPN 12   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 18 23
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 4 20


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 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 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 36 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 17 44
Smart > ITS-Tools 1   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 7 54
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 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 smpt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to smpt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart smpt Both tools   Smart smpt
All computed OK 0 36 20   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = smpt 0 Times tool wins 18 43
Smart > smpt 5   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < smpt 0 Times tool wins 11 50
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than smpt, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, smpt wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 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 36 16   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 11 50
Smart > Tapaal 9   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 17 44
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 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 LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart LoLa+red Both tools   Smart LoLa+red
All computed OK 0 36 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 22 39
Smart > LoLa+red 2   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 13 48
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than LoLa+red, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLa+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart LTSMin+red Both tools   Smart LTSMin+red
All computed OK 0 36 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 17 44
Smart > LTSMin+red 1   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 11 50
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than LTSMin+red, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart Marcie+red Both tools   Smart Marcie+red
All computed OK 0 36 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 25 36
Smart > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 20 41
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart and 61 for Smart+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 to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart Smart+red Both tools   Smart Smart+red
All computed OK 0 36 20   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 17 44
Smart > Smart+red 5   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 7 54
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than Smart+red, denote cases where Smart computed less values than Smart+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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart 2022-gold Both tools   Smart 2022-gold
All computed OK 0 36 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 12 49
Smart > 2022-gold 11   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 19 42
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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

Statistics on the executions
  Smart BVT-2023 Both tools   Smart BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 36 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
Smart > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart LoLA Both tools   Smart LoLA
All computed OK 0 36 11   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 15 46
Smart > LoLA 14   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 14 47
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 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 computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart LTSMin Both tools   Smart LTSMin
All computed OK 0 22 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 21 26
Smart > LTSMin 8   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 17 30
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 0 14


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 LTSMin, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Smart 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 to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Smart Marcie Both tools   Smart Marcie
All computed OK 0 17 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
Smart = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 24 18
Smart > Marcie 1   Shortest Execution Time
Smart < Marcie 0 Times tool wins 20 22
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 0 19


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 Marcie, denote cases where Smart 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart