Execution Chart

Sorry, for this execution, no execution chart could be reported.

Trace from the execution

Formatting '/data/fkordon/mcc2025-input.r002-tall-174853728700162.qcow2', fmt=qcow2 size=4294967296 backing_file=/data/fkordon/mcc2025-input.qcow2 backing_fmt=qcow2 cluster_size=65536 lazy_refcounts=off refcount_bits=16
Waiting for the VM to be ready (probing ssh)
........................................................................
=====================================================================
Generated by BenchKit 2-5832
Executing tool itstools
Input is Anderson-PT-06, examination is CTLFireability
Time confinement is 3600 seconds
Memory confinement is 16384 MBytes
Number of cores is 4
Run identifier is r002-tall-174853728700162
=====================================================================

--------------------
preparation of the directory to be used:
/home/mcc/execution
total 692K
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 7.5K May 29 14:47 CTLCardinality.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 77K May 29 14:47 CTLCardinality.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 6.9K May 29 14:47 CTLFireability.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 53K May 29 14:47 CTLFireability.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 3.9K May 29 14:47 LTLCardinality.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 27K May 29 14:47 LTLCardinality.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 3.0K May 29 14:47 LTLFireability.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 20K May 29 14:47 LTLFireability.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 7.8K May 29 14:47 ReachabilityCardinality.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 69K May 29 14:47 ReachabilityCardinality.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 11K May 29 14:47 ReachabilityFireability.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 67K May 29 14:47 ReachabilityFireability.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 1.6K May 29 14:47 UpperBounds.txt
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 3.6K May 29 14:47 UpperBounds.xml
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 6 May 29 14:32 equiv_col
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 3 May 29 14:32 instance
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 6 May 29 14:32 iscolored
-rw-r--r-- 1 mcc users 302K May 29 14:32 model.pnml

--------------------
content from stdout:

=== Data for post analysis generated by BenchKit (invocation template)

The expected result is a vector of booleans
BOOL_VECTOR

echo here is the order used to build the result vector(from xml file)
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-12
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-13
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-14
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-15
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-00
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-01
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-02
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-03
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-04
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-05
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-06
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-07
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-08
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-09
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-10
FORMULA_NAME Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-11

=== Now, execution of the tool begins

BK_START 1748541606182

Invoking MCC driver with
BK_TOOL=itstools
BK_EXAMINATION=CTLFireability
BK_BIN_PATH=/home/mcc/BenchKit/bin/
BK_TIME_CONFINEMENT=3600
BK_INPUT=Anderson-PT-06
BK_MEMORY_CONFINEMENT=16384
Not applying reductions.
Model is PT
CTLFireability PT
Running Version 202505121319
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Running its-tools with arguments : [-pnfolder, /home/mcc/execution, -examination, CTLFireability, -its, -ltsmin, -greatspnpath, /home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//..//greatspn/, -order, META, -manyOrder, -smt, -timeout, 3600]
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Parsing pnml file : /home/mcc/execution/model.pnml
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Load time of PNML (sax parser for PT used): 91 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Transformed 229 places.
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Transformed 600 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Found NUPN structural information;
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Parsed PT model containing 229 places and 600 transitions and 2280 arcs in 181 ms.
Parsed 16 properties from file /home/mcc/execution/CTLFireability.xml in 11 ms.
Support contains 85 out of 229 places. Attempting structural reductions.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 229/229 places, 600/600 transitions.
Discarding 20 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 20 rule applications. Total rules 20 place count 209 transition count 580
Iterating global reduction 0 with 20 rules applied. Total rules applied 40 place count 209 transition count 580
Applied a total of 40 rules in 36 ms. Remains 209 /229 variables (removed 20) and now considering 580/600 (removed 20) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 580 rows 209 cols
[2025-05-29 18:00:07] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 21 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:08] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 281 ms returned []
[2025-05-29 18:00:08] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:08] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
[2025-05-29 18:00:08] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants and state equation in 651 ms returned []
Implicit Place search using SMT with State Equation took 969 ms to find 0 implicit places.
Running 574 sub problems to find dead transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:00:08] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
[2025-05-29 18:00:08] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:12] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 204 ms of which 57 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:12] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 129 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:12] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 127 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:12] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 124 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:12] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 134 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:13] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 140 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:13] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 136 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:13] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 133 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:13] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 122 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:13] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 44 places in 141 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 58 places in 124 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 51 places in 120 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 45 places in 135 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 52 places in 128 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 38 places in 120 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 126 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 131 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 133 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 129 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 152 ms of which 23 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 20/35 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 44 places in 125 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:18] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 148 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:18] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 55 places in 139 ms of which 23 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:18] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 61 places in 137 ms of which 22 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:18] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 62 places in 140 ms of which 26 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:18] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 46 places in 134 ms of which 26 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:19] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 60 places in 126 ms of which 23 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:19] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 66 places in 135 ms of which 27 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:19] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 61 places in 124 ms of which 24 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:19] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 67 places in 128 ms of which 24 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:19] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 74 places in 127 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:19] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 74 places in 129 ms of which 23 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:20] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 55 places in 122 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:20] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 41 places in 129 ms of which 22 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:20] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 30 places in 141 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:20] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 31 places in 134 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:21] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 31 places in 125 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:21] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 134 ms of which 10 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:21] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 55 places in 142 ms of which 24 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 19/54 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:24] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 57 places in 138 ms of which 22 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 50 places in 136 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 125 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 46 places in 141 ms of which 26 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 62 places in 132 ms of which 24 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 123 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 6/60 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:28] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 125 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:28] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 60 places in 133 ms of which 24 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:28] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 125 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:29] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 123 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:30] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 51 places in 134 ms of which 24 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:31] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 123 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:31] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 119 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:31] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 131 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:31] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 40 places in 133 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:32] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 63 places in 129 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:32] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 63 places in 133 ms of which 25 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:32] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 63 places in 122 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:32] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 40 places in 138 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 58 places in 144 ms of which 22 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 5 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 14/74 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 124 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 1/75 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Solver is answering 'unknown', stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Real declared 209/789 variables, and 75 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved in 30042 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 7/7 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 8/8 constraints, State Equation: 0/209 constraints, ReadFeed: 0/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 574/574 constraints, Known Traps: 60/60 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
Escalating to Integer solving :Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 60/75 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:42] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 125 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:42] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 50 places in 113 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 2/77 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:57] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 40 places in 129 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:00:59] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 56 places in 122 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:00] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 48 places in 129 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 3/80 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Solver is answering 'unknown', stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Int declared 209/789 variables, and 80 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved in 30022 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 7/7 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 8/8 constraints, State Equation: 0/209 constraints, ReadFeed: 0/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 0/574 constraints, Known Traps: 65/65 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
After SMT, in 60551ms problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 574 unsolved
Search for dead transitions found 0 dead transitions in 60566ms
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 209/229 places, 580/600 transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 1 iterations and 61594 ms. Remains : 209/229 places, 580/600 transitions.
Support contains 85 out of 209 places after structural reductions.
[2025-05-29 18:01:09] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 71 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:09] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 41 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:09] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 580 transitions.
Reduction of identical properties reduced properties to check from 84 to 83
RANDOM walk for 40000 steps (8 resets) in 2804 ms. (14 steps per ms) remains 31/83 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4003 steps (8 resets) in 28 ms. (138 steps per ms) remains 19/31 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4004 steps (8 resets) in 23 ms. (166 steps per ms) remains 16/19 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4001 steps (8 resets) in 25 ms. (153 steps per ms) remains 16/16 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4001 steps (8 resets) in 27 ms. (142 steps per ms) remains 15/16 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4004 steps (8 resets) in 14 ms. (266 steps per ms) remains 15/15 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4003 steps (8 resets) in 13 ms. (285 steps per ms) remains 14/15 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4004 steps (8 resets) in 14 ms. (266 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4001 steps (8 resets) in 9 ms. (400 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4004 steps (8 resets) in 8 ms. (444 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4001 steps (8 resets) in 16 ms. (235 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4003 steps (8 resets) in 12 ms. (307 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4002 steps (8 resets) in 14 ms. (266 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4003 steps (8 resets) in 9 ms. (400 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4002 steps (8 resets) in 11 ms. (333 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4004 steps (8 resets) in 11 ms. (333 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 4001 steps (8 resets) in 15 ms. (250 steps per ms) remains 14/14 properties
[2025-05-29 18:01:10] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
[2025-05-29 18:01:10] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
Starting Z3 with timeout 5.0 s and query timeout 500.0 ms
All remaining problems are real, not stopping.
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/28 variables, 0/0 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 14 unsolved
Problem AtomicPropp14 is UNSAT
Problem AtomicPropp48 is UNSAT
Problem AtomicPropp66 is UNSAT
At refinement iteration 1 (OVERLAPS) 176/204 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 3 solved, 11 unsolved
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/204 variables, 3/10 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 3 solved, 11 unsolved
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/204 variables, 0/10 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 3 solved, 11 unsolved
Problem AtomicPropp7 is UNSAT
Problem AtomicPropp18 is UNSAT
Problem AtomicPropp37 is UNSAT
At refinement iteration 4 (OVERLAPS) 5/209 variables, 5/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:11] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 40 places in 130 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:11] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 131 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:11] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 114 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:11] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 111 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 5 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 4/19 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:11] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 138 ms of which 20 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:11] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 136 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 2/21 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 7 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 0/21 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 8 (OVERLAPS) 580/789 variables, 209/230 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 9 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/789 variables, 30/260 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 10 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/789 variables, 0/260 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 11 (OVERLAPS) 0/789 variables, 0/260 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
No progress, stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Real declared 789/789 variables, and 260 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved in 1825 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 7/7 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 8/8 constraints, State Equation: 209/209 constraints, ReadFeed: 30/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 14/14 constraints, Known Traps: 6/6 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
Escalating to Integer solving :Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 5.0 s and query timeout 500.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/11 variables, 0/0 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (OVERLAPS) 151/162 variables, 5/5 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/162 variables, 0/5 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 3 (OVERLAPS) 12/174 variables, 1/6 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/174 variables, 0/6 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 5 (OVERLAPS) 25/199 variables, 1/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/199 variables, 0/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 7 (OVERLAPS) 10/209 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 8 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 6/21 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 9 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/209 variables, 0/21 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 10 (OVERLAPS) 580/789 variables, 209/230 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 11 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/789 variables, 30/260 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 12 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/789 variables, 8/268 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 13 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/789 variables, 0/268 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:13] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 48 places in 115 ms of which 21 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 14 (OVERLAPS) 0/789 variables, 1/269 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 15 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/789 variables, 0/269 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
At refinement iteration 16 (OVERLAPS) 0/789 variables, 0/269 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
No progress, stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Int declared 789/789 variables, and 269 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved in 2731 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 7/7 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 8/8 constraints, State Equation: 209/209 constraints, ReadFeed: 30/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 8/14 constraints, Known Traps: 7/7 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
After SMT, in 4604ms problems are : Problem set: 6 solved, 8 unsolved
Parikh walk visited 5 properties in 3460 ms.
Support contains 7 out of 209 places. Attempting structural reductions.
Starting structural reductions in REACHABILITY mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Performed 29 Pre agglomeration using Quasi-Persistent + Divergent Free condition..
Pre-agglomeration after 0 with 29 Pre rules applied. Total rules applied 0 place count 209 transition count 551
Deduced a syphon composed of 29 places in 0 ms
Reduce places removed 29 places and 0 transitions.
Iterating global reduction 0 with 58 rules applied. Total rules applied 58 place count 180 transition count 551
Discarding 36 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 36 rule applications. Total rules 94 place count 144 transition count 245
Iterating global reduction 0 with 36 rules applied. Total rules applied 130 place count 144 transition count 245
Performed 1 Post agglomeration using F-continuation condition.Transition count delta: 1
Deduced a syphon composed of 1 places in 0 ms
Reduce places removed 1 places and 0 transitions.
Iterating global reduction 0 with 2 rules applied. Total rules applied 132 place count 143 transition count 244
Applied a total of 132 rules in 44 ms. Remains 143 /209 variables (removed 66) and now considering 244/580 (removed 336) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in REACHABILITY mode , in 1 iterations and 44 ms. Remains : 143/209 places, 244/580 transitions.
RANDOM walk for 40000 steps (8 resets) in 282 ms. (141 steps per ms) remains 3/3 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 40003 steps (8 resets) in 86 ms. (459 steps per ms) remains 3/3 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 40003 steps (8 resets) in 58 ms. (678 steps per ms) remains 3/3 properties
BEST_FIRST walk for 40003 steps (8 resets) in 86 ms. (459 steps per ms) remains 3/3 properties
Finished probabilistic random walk after 88816 steps, run visited all 3 properties in 290 ms. (steps per millisecond=306 )
Probabilistic random walk after 88816 steps, saw 45643 distinct states, run finished after 294 ms. (steps per millisecond=302 ) properties seen :3
Successfully simplified 6 atomic propositions for a total of 16 simplifications.
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-08 FALSE TECHNIQUES TOPOLOGICAL INITIAL_STATE
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 30 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 29 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 580 transitions.
Support contains 74 out of 209 places (down from 80) after GAL structural reductions.
Computed a total of 0 stabilizing places and 0 stable transitions
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 39 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 39 rule applications. Total rules 39 place count 170 transition count 251
Iterating global reduction 0 with 39 rules applied. Total rules applied 78 place count 170 transition count 251
Applied a total of 78 rules in 9 ms. Remains 170 /209 variables (removed 39) and now considering 251/580 (removed 329) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 251 rows 170 cols
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 8 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 171 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 173 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 169/209 places, 251/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 3 ms. Remains 169 /169 variables (removed 0) and now considering 251/251 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 185 ms. Remains : 169/209 places, 251/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 10 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 10 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 251 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability4294718139906615465.gal : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:19] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability15972439468631060161.ctl : 5 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability4294718139906615465.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability15972439468631060161.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,987636,1.27021,50376,2,23091,5,161818,6,0,930,112429,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: AX(AX(EX(EF(((next_2==1)&&(ncs_5_5==1))))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [(EY(EY(Init)) * !(EX(E(TRUE U ((next_2==1)&&(ncs_5_5==1))))))] = FALSE
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t215, t216, t217, t218, t219, t220, t221, t222, t223, t224, t225, t226, t227, t228, t229, t23...378
(forward)formula 0,1,16.902,548888,1,0,529,2.66704e+06,523,277,6707,1.1197e+06,572
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-00 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 36 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 36 rule applications. Total rules 36 place count 173 transition count 274
Iterating global reduction 0 with 36 rules applied. Total rules applied 72 place count 173 transition count 274
Applied a total of 72 rules in 12 ms. Remains 173 /209 variables (removed 36) and now considering 274/580 (removed 306) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 274 rows 173 cols
[2025-05-29 18:01:36] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 5 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 322 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 323 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 172/209 places, 274/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 3 ms. Remains 172 /172 variables (removed 0) and now considering 274/274 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 338 ms. Remains : 172/209 places, 274/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 274 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 10 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability18152031471977939413.gal : 3 ms
[2025-05-29 18:01:37] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability4556152198640273424.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability18152031471977939413.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability4556152198640273424.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.21942e+06,2.05027,80764,2,26820,5,233311,6,0,965,184869,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: AX(!(A(!((((next_7==1)&&(ncs_3_0==1))&&((p1_1_8!=1)&&(!((next_11==1)&&(p1_2_5==1)))))) U ((EX(AX(((next_2==1)&&(ncs_2_0==1)))) * (next_4=...178
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [((EY(Init) * !(EG(!(((EX(!(EX(!(((next_2==1)&&(ncs_2_0==1)))))) * (next_4==1)) * (ncs_3_2==1)))))) * !(E(!(((EX...405
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t102, t103, t104, t114, t115, t116, t120, t121, t122, t126, t127, t128, t132, t133, t134, t14...474
(forward)formula 0,1,26.3123,777032,1,0,583,4.51183e+06,573,306,7151,1.67084e+06,633
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-01 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in SI_CTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Performed 30 Pre agglomeration using Quasi-Persistent + Divergent Free condition..
Pre-agglomeration after 0 with 30 Pre rules applied. Total rules applied 0 place count 209 transition count 550
Deduced a syphon composed of 30 places in 1 ms
Reduce places removed 30 places and 0 transitions.
Iterating global reduction 0 with 60 rules applied. Total rules applied 60 place count 179 transition count 550
Discarding 39 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 39 rule applications. Total rules 99 place count 140 transition count 221
Iterating global reduction 0 with 39 rules applied. Total rules applied 138 place count 140 transition count 221
Applied a total of 138 rules in 21 ms. Remains 140 /209 variables (removed 69) and now considering 221/580 (removed 359) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 221 rows 140 cols
[2025-05-29 18:02:03] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 2 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 309 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 312 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in SI_CTL mode, iteration 1 : 139/209 places, 221/580 transitions.
Drop transitions (Trivial Post-Agglo cleanup.) removed 35 transitions
Trivial Post-agglo rules discarded 35 transitions
Performed 35 trivial Post agglomeration. Transition count delta: 35
Iterating post reduction 0 with 35 rules applied. Total rules applied 35 place count 139 transition count 186
Reduce places removed 35 places and 0 transitions.
Iterating post reduction 1 with 35 rules applied. Total rules applied 70 place count 104 transition count 186
Applied a total of 70 rules in 11 ms. Remains 104 /139 variables (removed 35) and now considering 186/221 (removed 35) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 186 rows 104 cols
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Computed 14 invariants in 2 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 69 ms returned []
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants and state equation in 231 ms returned []
Implicit Place search using SMT with State Equation took 302 ms to find 0 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in SI_CTL mode, iteration 2 : 104/209 places, 186/580 transitions.
Finished structural reductions in SI_CTL mode , in 2 iterations and 647 ms. Remains : 104/209 places, 186/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 10 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 186 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability16627040545833119414.gal : 2 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:04] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability8752908412722128885.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability16627040545833119414.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability8752908412722128885.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,47851,0.55283,27992,2,12605,5,78378,6,0,605,48313,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: EG(AG(((next_9==0)||(ncs_2_1==0))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,!(E(TRUE U !(((next_9==0)||(ncs_2_1==0))))))] != FALSE
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t119, t120, t121, t122, t123, t124, t125, t126, t127, t128, t129, t130, t131, t133, t134, t13...378
(forward)formula 0,0,8.04581,286424,1,0,443,1.53557e+06,400,216,5094,542949,452
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-02 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 36 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 36 rule applications. Total rules 36 place count 173 transition count 274
Iterating global reduction 0 with 36 rules applied. Total rules applied 72 place count 173 transition count 274
Applied a total of 72 rules in 5 ms. Remains 173 /209 variables (removed 36) and now considering 274/580 (removed 306) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 274 rows 173 cols
[2025-05-29 18:02:12] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 10 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:12] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 141 ms returned []
[2025-05-29 18:02:12] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:12] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
[2025-05-29 18:02:13] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants and state equation in 456 ms returned []
Implicit Place search using SMT with State Equation took 599 ms to find 0 implicit places.
Running 268 sub problems to find dead transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:02:13] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
[2025-05-29 18:02:13] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 8/8 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 7/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 32 places in 87 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 87 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 86 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:14] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 31 places in 98 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 33 places in 94 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 32 places in 92 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 31 places in 81 ms of which 9 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 87 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:15] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 26 places in 92 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 30 places in 90 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 87 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 90 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 83 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 13/28 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 75 ms of which 10 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 32 places in 84 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:17] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 97 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 3/31 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 0/31 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 5 (OVERLAPS) 274/447 variables, 173/204 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 30/234 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:23] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 79 ms of which 7 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:23] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 89 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 7 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 2/236 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 78 ms of which 6 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 75 ms of which 11 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 8 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 2/238 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 86 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 83 ms of which 10 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 87 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 9 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 3/241 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 10 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 0/241 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:02:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 57 places in 80 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 11 (OVERLAPS) 0/447 variables, 1/242 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 12 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 0/242 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Solver is answering 'unknown', stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Real declared 447/447 variables, and 242 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved in 30012 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 8/8 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 7/7 constraints, State Equation: 173/173 constraints, ReadFeed: 30/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 268/268 constraints, Known Traps: 24/24 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
Escalating to Integer solving :Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 8/8 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 7/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 24/39 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/173 variables, 0/39 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 4 (OVERLAPS) 274/447 variables, 173/212 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 5 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 30/242 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/447 variables, 268/510 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Solver is answering 'unknown', stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Int declared 447/447 variables, and 510 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved in 30018 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 8/8 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 7/7 constraints, State Equation: 173/173 constraints, ReadFeed: 30/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 268/268 constraints, Known Traps: 24/24 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
After SMT, in 60085ms problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 268 unsolved
Search for dead transitions found 0 dead transitions in 60087ms
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 173/209 places, 274/580 transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 1 iterations and 60692 ms. Remains : 173/209 places, 274/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 274 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability18414599580603991678.gal : 2 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:13] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability9987912215664298206.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability18414599580603991678.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability9987912215664298206.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.22019e+06,11.8408,347008,2,54945,5,1.04886e+06,6,0,969,655307,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 11 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Applying decomposition
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
Converted graph to binary with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/convert-linux64' '-i' '/tmp/graph5451330998032816080.txt' '-o' '/tmp/graph5451330998032816080.bin' '-w' '/tmp/graph5451330998032816080.weights'
Built communities with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/louvain-linux64' '/tmp/graph5451330998032816080.bin' '-l' '-1' '-v' '-w' '/tmp/graph5451330998032816080.weights' '-q' '0' '-e' '0.001'
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Decomposing Gal with order
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Rewriting arrays to variables to allow decomposition.
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Removed a total of 372 redundant transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 92 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Fuse similar labels procedure discarded/fused a total of 25 labels/synchronizations in 9 ms.
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability11282907017208375851.gal : 3 ms
[2025-05-29 18:03:43] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability2748165000513247550.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability11282907017208375851.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability2748165000513247550.ctl'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...263
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.22019e+06,1.41049,48472,4335,2597,82725,8039,623,75000,380,7347,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: A((!(AF(EX(((i1.u1.next_0==1)&&(i8.u38.ncs_4_4==1))))) + AF(((EG(((u0.slot_F.F.F.F.F.F==1)&&(i7.u32.cs_2_3==1))) + E(((i3.u2.next_5==1)&&...305
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [((Init * !(EG(!(!(EG(!((i4.u26.p1_1_7==1)))))))) * !(E(!(!(EG(!((i4.u26.p1_1_7==1))))) U (!((!(!(EG(!(EX(((i1.u...462
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t113, t125, t131, t239, t241, t242, t248, t249, t251, t252, t253, t254, t257, t261, t263, t26...466
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 5
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 6
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 7
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 8
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 36 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 36 rule applications. Total rules 36 place count 173 transition count 264
Iterating global reduction 0 with 36 rules applied. Total rules applied 72 place count 173 transition count 264
Applied a total of 72 rules in 4 ms. Remains 173 /209 variables (removed 36) and now considering 264/580 (removed 316) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 264 rows 173 cols
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 5 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 142 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 143 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 172/209 places, 264/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 172 /172 variables (removed 0) and now considering 264/264 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 148 ms. Remains : 172/209 places, 264/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 264 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability1768182539933233286.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:13] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability11136504484075087782.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability1768182539933233286.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability11136504484075087782.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.19919e+06,2.05808,82124,2,25911,5,242527,6,0,955,187916,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: A(E(!(E((EF(((next_7==1)&&(ncs_1_2==1))) * !(((slot_F.F.T.F.F.F==1)&&(p3_3_2==1)))) U AX(((next_7==1)&&(ncs_1_2==1))))) U AX(EX(((p1_1_4=...249
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [((Init * !(EG(!(EG(EX(EG((((next_8==1)&&(ncs_1_2==1))||((next_9==1)&&(ncs_2_4==1)))))))))) * !(E(!(EG(EX(EG((((...484
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t22, t26, t27, t28, t44, t45, t46, t47, t48, t49, t50, t51, t52, t53, t93, t98, t99, t104, t1...535
(forward)formula 0,0,28.4945,831100,1,0,670,4.93402e+06,568,329,7074,1.90119e+06,704
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-04 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 38 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 38 rule applications. Total rules 38 place count 171 transition count 262
Iterating global reduction 0 with 38 rules applied. Total rules applied 76 place count 171 transition count 262
Applied a total of 76 rules in 4 ms. Remains 171 /209 variables (removed 38) and now considering 262/580 (removed 318) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 262 rows 171 cols
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 7 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 167 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 168 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 170/209 places, 262/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 170 /170 variables (removed 0) and now considering 262/262 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 173 ms. Remains : 170/209 places, 262/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 262 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability11077700564566530882.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:04:42] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability7276231411440844683.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability11077700564566530882.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability7276231411440844683.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.0636e+06,1.62537,65380,2,25735,5,203022,6,0,945,147879,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: AF(AX(((E(((slot_F.F.F.F.F.T==1)&&(p3_3_5==1)) U ((next_5==1)&&(ncs_4_1==1))) * (next_1==1)) * (ncs_4_3==1))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,!(!(EX(!(((E(((slot_F.F.F.F.F.T==1)&&(p3_3_5==1)) U ((next_5==1)&&(ncs_4_1==1))) * (next_1==1)) * (nc...179
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t226, t227, t228, t229, t230, t231, t232, t233, t234, t235, t236, t237, t238, t239, t240, t24...378
(forward)formula 0,0,16.9777,542116,1,0,512,2.18989e+06,550,270,7018,1.08927e+06,546
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-05 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 33 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 33 rule applications. Total rules 33 place count 176 transition count 297
Iterating global reduction 0 with 33 rules applied. Total rules applied 66 place count 176 transition count 297
Applied a total of 66 rules in 3 ms. Remains 176 /209 variables (removed 33) and now considering 297/580 (removed 283) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 297 rows 176 cols
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 1 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 121 ms returned []
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants and state equation in 511 ms returned []
Implicit Place search using SMT with State Equation took 633 ms to find 0 implicit places.
Running 291 sub problems to find dead transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
[2025-05-29 18:05:00] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:02] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 33 places in 93 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:02] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 92 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:02] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 115 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:02] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 83 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:02] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 101 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:03] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 30 places in 78 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:03] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 33 places in 85 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:03] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 82 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:03] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 82 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:03] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 33 places in 104 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:03] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 95 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 69 ms of which 6 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 48 places in 88 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 13/28 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 89 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 91 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 84 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 79 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:04] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 83 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:05] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 80 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:05] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 74 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:05] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 56 places in 81 ms of which 8 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:05] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 94 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:05] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 79 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:05] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 70 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:06] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 92 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:06] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 94 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 13/41 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:08] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 95 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:08] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 91 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 2/43 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 5 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 0/43 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 6 (OVERLAPS) 297/473 variables, 176/219 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 7 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/473 variables, 30/249 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:16] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 88 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 8 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/473 variables, 1/250 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:17] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 51 places in 88 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:17] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 93 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:17] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 64 places in 87 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 9 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/473 variables, 3/253 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:22] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 84 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:22] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 50 places in 76 ms of which 10 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 10 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/473 variables, 2/255 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 11 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/473 variables, 0/255 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:28] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 57 places in 85 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:05:28] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 57 places in 79 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 12 (OVERLAPS) 0/473 variables, 2/257 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Solver is answering 'unknown', stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Real declared 473/473 variables, and 257 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved in 30017 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 7/7 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 8/8 constraints, State Equation: 176/176 constraints, ReadFeed: 30/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 291/291 constraints, Known Traps: 36/36 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
Escalating to Integer solving :Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 36/51 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/176 variables, 0/51 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
At refinement iteration 4 (OVERLAPS) 297/473 variables, 176/227 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
SMT process timed out in 60085ms, After SMT, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 291 unsolved
Search for dead transitions found 0 dead transitions in 60086ms
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 176/209 places, 297/580 transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 1 iterations and 60725 ms. Remains : 176/209 places, 297/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 297 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability13576222906336321683.gal : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:00] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability3061359657501667216.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability13576222906336321683.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability3061359657501667216.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.52537e+06,19.5125,573372,2,84591,5,1.78684e+06,6,0,1004,853170,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
[2025-05-29 18:06:30] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 11 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:30] [INFO ] Applying decomposition
[2025-05-29 18:06:30] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
Converted graph to binary with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/convert-linux64' '-i' '/tmp/graph2470427370754372711.txt' '-o' '/tmp/graph2470427370754372711.bin' '-w' '/tmp/graph2470427370754372711.weights'
Built communities with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/louvain-linux64' '/tmp/graph2470427370754372711.bin' '-l' '-1' '-v' '-w' '/tmp/graph2470427370754372711.weights' '-q' '0' '-e' '0.001'
[2025-05-29 18:06:30] [INFO ] Decomposing Gal with order
[2025-05-29 18:06:30] [INFO ] Rewriting arrays to variables to allow decomposition.
[2025-05-29 18:06:31] [INFO ] Removed a total of 447 redundant transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:06:31] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 25 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:31] [INFO ] Fuse similar labels procedure discarded/fused a total of 29 labels/synchronizations in 8 ms.
[2025-05-29 18:06:31] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability12817921073753809014.gal : 3 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:31] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability10880056912411578308.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability12817921073753809014.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability10880056912411578308.ctl'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...264
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.52537e+06,1.95715,59972,4118,2469,103469,11665,713,85037,377,18076,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: EG((((!(E((((i2.u1.next_0==1)&&(i5.u20.ncs_4_0==1))&&(i7.u29.p1_1_3==1)) U (((i3.u15.p1_2_10==1)&&(i2.u1.next_1==1))&&(i5.u36.ncs_4_1==1)...462
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,(((!(E((((i2.u1.next_0==1)&&(i5.u20.ncs_4_0==1))&&(i7.u29.p1_1_3==1)) U (((i3.u15.p1_2_10==1)&&(i2.u1...624
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t33, t37, t38, t55, t56, t59, t60, t62, t70, t71, t77, t78, t79, t81, t82, t84, t85, t110, t1...614
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 5
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 6
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 7
(forward)formula 0,1,24.9039,668620,1,0,1.2593e+06,101671,3782,1.02345e+06,2139,319734,4133768
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-06 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL USE_NUPN
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 40 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 40 rule applications. Total rules 40 place count 169 transition count 240
Iterating global reduction 0 with 40 rules applied. Total rules applied 80 place count 169 transition count 240
Applied a total of 80 rules in 3 ms. Remains 169 /209 variables (removed 40) and now considering 240/580 (removed 340) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 240 rows 169 cols
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 4 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 143 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 144 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 168/209 places, 240/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 168 /168 variables (removed 0) and now considering 240/240 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 149 ms. Remains : 168/209 places, 240/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 240 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability10790955771060701223.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:06:56] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability9441708583259025363.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability10790955771060701223.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability9441708583259025363.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,911670,0.847578,40856,2,21008,5,122081,6,0,915,83336,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: EF(AX(((next_6==1)&&(p1_5_5==1))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [(FwdU(Init,TRUE) * !(EX(!(((next_6==1)&&(p1_5_5==1))))))] != FALSE
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t204, t205, t206, t207, t208, t209, t210, t211, t212, t213, t214, t215, t216, t217, t218, t21...378
(forward)formula 0,0,11.159,373840,1,0,485,1.58082e+06,497,243,6336,744473,487
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-07 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 35 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 35 rule applications. Total rules 35 place count 174 transition count 285
Iterating global reduction 0 with 35 rules applied. Total rules applied 70 place count 174 transition count 285
Applied a total of 70 rules in 9 ms. Remains 174 /209 variables (removed 35) and now considering 285/580 (removed 295) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 285 rows 174 cols
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 2 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 130 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 130 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 173/209 places, 285/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 2 ms. Remains 173 /173 variables (removed 0) and now considering 285/285 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 142 ms. Remains : 173/209 places, 285/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 285 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability13064894181194432172.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:07] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability9035871416968781176.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability13064894181194432172.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability9035871416968781176.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...284
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.3177e+06,3.37876,116404,2,28769,5,335761,6,0,980,289256,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: AF(E((!(EG(((next_3==1)&&(ncs_2_1==1)))) + A(EF(((next_1==1)&&(ncs_0_1==1))) U !(((next_4==1)&&(ncs_1_1==1))))) U A((E((p1_5_0==1) U ((ne...272
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,!(E((!(EG(((next_3==1)&&(ncs_2_1==1)))) + !((E(!(!(((next_4==1)&&(ncs_1_1==1)))) U (!(E(TRUE U ((next...483
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t111, t112, t113, t114, t115, t117, t118, t119, t120, t121, t123, t124, t125, t126, t127, t12...534
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Applying decomposition
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
Converted graph to binary with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/convert-linux64' '-i' '/tmp/graph3808555736600738853.txt' '-o' '/tmp/graph3808555736600738853.bin' '-w' '/tmp/graph3808555736600738853.weights'
Built communities with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/louvain-linux64' '/tmp/graph3808555736600738853.bin' '-l' '-1' '-v' '-w' '/tmp/graph3808555736600738853.weights' '-q' '0' '-e' '0.001'
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Decomposing Gal with order
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Rewriting arrays to variables to allow decomposition.
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Removed a total of 491 redundant transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 16 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Fuse similar labels procedure discarded/fused a total of 4 labels/synchronizations in 4 ms.
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability16592807655090088736.gal : 2 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:37] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability4778229197550905903.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability16592807655090088736.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability4778229197550905903.ctl'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...263
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.3177e+06,0.783195,31516,4218,27,54373,147,823,47777,40,255,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: AF(E((!(EG(((i0.i2.u1.next_3==1)&&(i2.u33.ncs_2_1==1)))) + A(EF(((i0.i1.u0.next_1==1)&&(i1.u46.ncs_0_1==1))) U !(((i0.i0.u2.next_4==1)&&(...379
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,!(E((!(EG(((i0.i2.u1.next_3==1)&&(i2.u33.ncs_2_1==1)))) + !((E(!(!(((i0.i0.u2.next_4==1)&&(i3.u29.ncs...622
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t249, t250, t251, t252, t253, t254, t255, t256, t257, t258, t259, t260, t261, t262, t263, t26...568
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 8
(forward)formula 0,0,11.6882,387244,1,0,719458,280,5041,643911,203,1100,3343396
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-09 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL USE_NUPN
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 38 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 38 rule applications. Total rules 38 place count 171 transition count 262
Iterating global reduction 0 with 38 rules applied. Total rules applied 76 place count 171 transition count 262
Applied a total of 76 rules in 3 ms. Remains 171 /209 variables (removed 38) and now considering 262/580 (removed 318) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 262 rows 171 cols
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 5 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 150 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 152 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 170/209 places, 262/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 170 /170 variables (removed 0) and now considering 262/262 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 164 ms. Remains : 170/209 places, 262/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 262 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability10327337330161140945.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:07:49] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability15283949251551395449.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability10327337330161140945.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability15283949251551395449.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...285
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.07119e+06,1.71225,72188,2,24756,5,215514,6,0,945,164178,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: EG((EF(((next_1==1)&&(ncs_3_4==1))) + !(E(AX(((slot_F.F.F.T.F.F==1)&&(p3_1_3==1))) U ((next_9==1)&&(ncs_1_2==1))))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,(E(TRUE U ((next_1==1)&&(ncs_3_4==1))) + !(E(!(EX(!(((slot_F.F.F.T.F.F==1)&&(p3_1_3==1))))) U ((next_...189
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t226, t227, t228, t229, t230, t231, t232, t233, t234, t235, t236, t237, t238, t239, t240, t24...378
(forward)formula 0,1,20.6548,621728,1,0,548,3.14952e+06,555,297,7209,1.36613e+06,609
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-10 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 37 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 37 rule applications. Total rules 37 place count 172 transition count 273
Iterating global reduction 0 with 37 rules applied. Total rules applied 74 place count 172 transition count 273
Applied a total of 74 rules in 3 ms. Remains 172 /209 variables (removed 37) and now considering 273/580 (removed 307) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 273 rows 172 cols
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 1 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 120 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 121 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 171/209 places, 273/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 171 /171 variables (removed 0) and now considering 273/273 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 125 ms. Remains : 171/209 places, 273/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 273 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability10218242017399485053.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:10] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability16709435423235790088.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability10218242017399485053.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability16709435423235790088.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...285
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.13957e+06,1.83229,78120,2,26085,5,226627,6,0,960,169886,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: AF((AX(EF(((next_10==0)||(ncs_4_0==0)))) * (EG(AG(((next_1==1)&&(ncs_4_2==1)))) + AG(EX(((next_4==0)||(ncs_4_4==0)))))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,!((!(EX(!(E(TRUE U ((next_10==0)||(ncs_4_0==0)))))) * (EG(!(E(TRUE U !(((next_1==1)&&(ncs_4_2==1)))))...219
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t237, t238, t239, t240, t241, t242, t243, t244, t245, t246, t247, t248, t249, t250, t251, t25...378
(forward)formula 0,0,19.9369,613096,1,0,559,2.85674e+06,579,301,7405,1.32047e+06,621
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-11 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 30 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 30 rule applications. Total rules 30 place count 179 transition count 340
Iterating global reduction 0 with 30 rules applied. Total rules applied 60 place count 179 transition count 340
Applied a total of 60 rules in 9 ms. Remains 179 /209 variables (removed 30) and now considering 340/580 (removed 240) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 340 rows 179 cols
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 4 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 101 ms returned []
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants and state equation in 646 ms returned []
Implicit Place search using SMT with State Equation took 748 ms to find 0 implicit places.
Running 334 sub problems to find dead transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
[2025-05-29 18:08:31] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 101 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 97 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 50 places in 98 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 93 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 105 ms of which 19 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 87 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 77 ms of which 7 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 113 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 102 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 97 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:35] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 56 places in 92 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:35] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 29 places in 100 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:35] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 29 places in 102 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:35] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 30 places in 98 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 14/29 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:36] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 94 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:36] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 93 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:36] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 51 places in 89 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:36] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 88 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:36] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 89 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:36] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 36 places in 97 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 101 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 90 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 91 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 56 places in 93 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:38] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 93 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:38] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 80 ms of which 11 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 12/41 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:41] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 94 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 1/42 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:41] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 62 places in 86 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:41] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 63 places in 90 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 5 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 2/44 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 0/44 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 7 (OVERLAPS) 340/519 variables, 179/223 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 8 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/519 variables, 30/253 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:49] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 37 places in 86 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:49] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 57 places in 97 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 9 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/519 variables, 2/255 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:54] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 56 places in 88 ms of which 17 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:54] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 43 places in 93 ms of which 18 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:08:55] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 81 ms of which 11 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 10 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/519 variables, 3/258 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 11 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/519 variables, 0/258 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Solver is answering 'unknown', stopping.
After SMT solving in domain Real declared 519/519 variables, and 258 constraints, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved in 30020 ms.
Refiners :[Positive P Invariants (semi-flows): 7/7 constraints, Generalized P Invariants (flows): 8/8 constraints, State Equation: 179/179 constraints, ReadFeed: 30/30 constraints, PredecessorRefiner: 334/334 constraints, Known Traps: 34/34 constraints, Known Traps Along Path: 0/0 constraints]
Escalating to Integer solving :Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 34/49 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/179 variables, 0/49 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
SMT process timed out in 60109ms, After SMT, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 334 unsolved
Search for dead transitions found 0 dead transitions in 60111ms
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 179/209 places, 340/580 transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 1 iterations and 60870 ms. Remains : 179/209 places, 340/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 9 ms
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 340 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 11 ms
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability8706595261550300827.gal : 2 ms
[2025-05-29 18:09:32] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability1407265511698053131.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability8706595261550300827.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability1407265511698053131.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...283
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 13 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Applying decomposition
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
Converted graph to binary with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/convert-linux64' '-i' '/tmp/graph2218150027346844925.txt' '-o' '/tmp/graph2218150027346844925.bin' '-w' '/tmp/graph2218150027346844925.weights'
Built communities with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/louvain-linux64' '/tmp/graph2218150027346844925.bin' '-l' '-1' '-v' '-w' '/tmp/graph2218150027346844925.weights' '-q' '0' '-e' '0.001'
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Decomposing Gal with order
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Rewriting arrays to variables to allow decomposition.
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Removed a total of 554 redundant transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 19 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Fuse similar labels procedure discarded/fused a total of 36 labels/synchronizations in 6 ms.
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability1973002652935918540.gal : 2 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:02] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability4791231044273507004.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability1973002652935918540.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability4791231044273507004.ctl'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...262
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.93866e+06,5.51466,142204,3759,5571,141086,50761,782,323637,425,904718,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: !(A((((!((AG((i10.u18.p1_4_7==1)) + A(((i2.u3.next_6==1)&&(i3.u7.ncs_0_2==1)) U ((i4.u0.slot_F.F.F.F.F.F==1)&&(i4.u0.cs_5_1==1))))) + ((i...698
=> equivalent forward existential formula: ([((FwdU(Init,!(!(!(EG(!(!(E(((i3.u1.next_1==1)&&(i10.u37.ncs_4_3==1)) U ((i2.u4.next_7==1)&&(i11.u40.ncs_5_5==1...1148
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t191, t192, t193, t304, t306, t308, t309, t322, t323, t326, t331, t333, t334, t336, t337, t33...461
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 4
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 5
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 6
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 7
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 8
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 9
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 10
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 11
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 37 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 37 rule applications. Total rules 37 place count 172 transition count 273
Iterating global reduction 0 with 37 rules applied. Total rules applied 74 place count 172 transition count 273
Applied a total of 74 rules in 3 ms. Remains 172 /209 variables (removed 37) and now considering 273/580 (removed 307) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 273 rows 172 cols
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 5 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 131 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 132 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 171/209 places, 273/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 171 /171 variables (removed 0) and now considering 273/273 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 136 ms. Remains : 171/209 places, 273/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 273 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 5 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability7878962525729112065.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:32] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability131621238145919997.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability7878962525729112065.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability131621238145919997.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...282
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.16328e+06,1.8613,80428,2,25349,5,235529,6,0,960,178077,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: EG(EF((((next_7==0)||(ncs_3_0==0)) * (AX(((next_0==0)||(ncs_1_4==0))) + AF(((next_4==0)||(ncs_5_2==0)))))))
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [FwdG(Init,E(TRUE U (((next_7==0)||(ncs_3_0==0)) * (!(EX(!(((next_0==0)||(ncs_1_4==0))))) + !(EG(!(((next_4==0)|...186
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t237, t238, t239, t240, t241, t242, t243, t244, t245, t246, t247, t248, t249, t250, t251, t25...378
(forward)formula 0,1,21.2298,616628,1,0,601,2.9539e+06,579,315,7443,1.27808e+06,688
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-13 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 30 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 30 rule applications. Total rules 30 place count 179 transition count 330
Iterating global reduction 0 with 30 rules applied. Total rules applied 60 place count 179 transition count 330
Applied a total of 60 rules in 3 ms. Remains 179 /209 variables (removed 30) and now considering 330/580 (removed 250) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 330 rows 179 cols
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 4 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 136 ms returned [0]
Discarding 1 places :
Implicit Place search using SMT only with invariants took 138 ms to find 1 implicit places.
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 178/209 places, 330/580 transitions.
Applied a total of 0 rules in 1 ms. Remains 178 /178 variables (removed 0) and now considering 330/330 (removed 0) transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 2 iterations and 144 ms. Remains : 178/209 places, 330/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 12 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 330 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 11 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability5792399944279214212.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:10:54] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability1999512912615046690.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability5792399944279214212.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability1999512912615046690.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...283
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.86073e+06,5.69894,175116,2,32440,5,488669,6,0,1045,410568,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: (EX(((slot_F.F.F.T.F.F==1)&&(p3_5_3==1))) + E((!(EX((((next_6==1)&&(p1_5_5==1))||((next_1==1)&&(ncs_3_3==1))))) + ((AF(!(((next_8==1)&&(n...447
=> equivalent forward existential formula: ([(EY(Init) * ((slot_F.F.F.T.F.F==1)&&(p3_5_3==1)))] != FALSE + [(FwdU(Init,(!(EX((((next_6==1)&&(p1_5_5==1))||(...632
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t155, t156, t157, t158, t159, t161, t162, t163, t164, t165, t167, t168, t169, t170, t171, t17...570
(forward)formula 0,0,28.1536,733132,1,0,620,3.46596e+06,685,341,8060,1.49517e+06,681
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-14 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 0 : 209/209 places, 580/580 transitions.
Discarding 35 places :
Symmetric choice reduction at 0 with 35 rule applications. Total rules 35 place count 174 transition count 295
Iterating global reduction 0 with 35 rules applied. Total rules applied 70 place count 174 transition count 295
Applied a total of 70 rules in 9 ms. Remains 174 /209 variables (removed 35) and now considering 295/580 (removed 285) transitions.
// Phase 1: matrix 295 rows 174 cols
[2025-05-29 18:11:22] [INFO ] Computed 15 invariants in 1 ms
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:22] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants in 104 ms returned []
[2025-05-29 18:11:22] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
Starting Z3 with timeout 160.0 s and query timeout 16000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:22] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
[2025-05-29 18:11:23] [INFO ] Implicit Places using invariants and state equation in 510 ms returned []
Implicit Place search using SMT with State Equation took 617 ms to find 0 implicit places.
Running 289 sub problems to find dead transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:11:23] [INFO ] Invariant cache hit.
[2025-05-29 18:11:23] [INFO ] State equation strengthened by 30 read => feed constraints.
Starting Z3 with timeout 30.0 s and query timeout 3000.0 ms
At refinement iteration 0 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/174 variables, 7/7 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
At refinement iteration 1 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/174 variables, 8/15 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:24] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 86 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:24] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 82 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:24] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 90 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 33 places in 87 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 27 places in 89 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 30 places in 92 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:25] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 87 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:26] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 84 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 2 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/174 variables, 8/23 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:26] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 93 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:27] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 75 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 3 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/174 variables, 2/25 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
At refinement iteration 4 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/174 variables, 0/25 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
At refinement iteration 5 (OVERLAPS) 295/469 variables, 174/199 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
At refinement iteration 6 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 30/229 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 56 places in 83 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 77 ms of which 8 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:33] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 79 ms of which 9 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:34] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 98 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 7 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 4/233 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:35] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 83 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:35] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 51 places in 87 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 8 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 2/235 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 63 places in 92 ms of which 15 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 42 places in 87 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:37] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 71 ms of which 11 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 9 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 3/238 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:41] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 99 ms of which 16 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 10 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 1/239 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:43] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 34 places in 93 ms of which 13 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:44] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 49 places in 83 ms of which 12 ms to minimize.
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:45] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 29 places in 94 ms of which 14 ms to minimize.
At refinement iteration 11 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 3/242 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
At refinement iteration 12 (INCLUDED_ONLY) 0/469 variables, 0/242 constraints. Problems are: Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Starting Z3 with timeout 120.0 s and query timeout 12000.0 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Deduced a trap composed of 35 places in 71 ms of which 6 ms to minimize.
SMT process timed out in 30084ms, After SMT, problems are : Problem set: 0 solved, 289 unsolved
Search for dead transitions found 0 dead transitions in 30084ms
Starting structural reductions in LTL mode, iteration 1 : 174/209 places, 295/580 transitions.
Finished structural reductions in LTL mode , in 1 iterations and 30712 ms. Remains : 174/209 places, 295/580 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 8 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Input system was already deterministic with 295 transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 6 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability18124831103930521680.gal : 1 ms
[2025-05-29 18:11:53] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability12966682327331098658.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability18124831103930521680.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability12966682327331098658.ctl' '--gen-order' 'FOLLOW'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...285
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.3667e+06,18.273,533612,2,81448,5,2.0829e+06,6,0,994,672813,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
Detected timeout of ITS tools.
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 10 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Applying decomposition
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 7 ms
Converted graph to binary with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/convert-linux64' '-i' '/tmp/graph6025573360548569562.txt' '-o' '/tmp/graph6025573360548569562.bin' '-w' '/tmp/graph6025573360548569562.weights'
Built communities with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/louvain-linux64' '/tmp/graph6025573360548569562.bin' '-l' '-1' '-v' '-w' '/tmp/graph6025573360548569562.weights' '-q' '0' '-e' '0.001'
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Decomposing Gal with order
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Rewriting arrays to variables to allow decomposition.
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Removed a total of 440 redundant transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 15 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Fuse similar labels procedure discarded/fused a total of 30 labels/synchronizations in 2 ms.
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability17466344801101830694.gal : 2 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:23] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability17114172404840592004.ctl : 1 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability17466344801101830694.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability17114172404840592004.ctl'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...264
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 1 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.3667e+06,1.15986,39060,2316,1456,65080,6233,670,53815,367,5926,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: EF(EX(((E((EF(((i1.u1.next_0==1)&&(i2.u27.ncs_0_2==1))) + !(((i2.u4.next_9==1)&&(i3.u9.ncs_1_4==1)))) U (((AX(((i1.u1.next_1==1)&&(i6.u35...399
=> equivalent forward existential formula: (([((((FwdU(EY(FwdU(Init,TRUE)),(E(TRUE U ((i1.u1.next_0==1)&&(i2.u27.ncs_0_2==1))) + !(((i2.u4.next_9==1)&&(i3....534
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t259, t260, t261, t264, t266, t269, t270, t274, t275, t277, t281, t282, t283, t286, t290, t29...270
(forward)formula 0,1,3.16782,105492,1,0,172778,70957,2899,175433,1911,250706,609110
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-15 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL USE_NUPN
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

ITS tools runner thread asked to quit. Dying gracefully.
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 14 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 14 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Applying decomposition
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 13 ms
Converted graph to binary with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/convert-linux64' '-i' '/tmp/graph6450646807153484039.txt' '-o' '/tmp/graph6450646807153484039.bin' '-w' '/tmp/graph6450646807153484039.weights'
Built communities with : '/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.louvain.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/louvain-linux64' '/tmp/graph6450646807153484039.bin' '-l' '-1' '-v' '-w' '/tmp/graph6450646807153484039.weights' '-q' '0' '-e' '0.001'
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Decomposing Gal with order
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Rewriting arrays to variables to allow decomposition.
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Removed a total of 833 redundant transitions.
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Flatten gal took : 38 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Fuse similar labels procedure discarded/fused a total of 240 labels/synchronizations in 5 ms.
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Time to serialize gal into /tmp/CTLFireability14208008134873239150.gal : 3 ms
[2025-05-29 18:12:26] [INFO ] Time to serialize properties into /tmp/CTLFireability17972008923319006322.ctl : 0 ms
Invoking ITS tools like this :cd /home/mcc/execution;'/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64' '--gc-threshold' '2000000' '--quiet' '-i' '/tmp/CTLFireability14208008134873239150.gal' '-t' 'CGAL' '-ctl' '/tmp/CTLFireability17972008923319006322.ctl'

its-ctl command run as :

/home/mcc/BenchKit/itstools/itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.itstools.binaries_1.0.0.202505121319/bin/its-ctl-linux64 --gc-threshold 2000000 --quiet -...264
No direction supplied, using forward translation only.
Parsed 2 CTL formulae.
Model ,|S| ,Time ,Mem(kb) ,fin. SDD ,fin. DDD ,peak SDD ,peak DDD ,SDD Hom ,SDD cache peak ,DDD Hom ,DDD cachepeak ,SHom cache
reachable,1.28859e+07,72.9459,1249036,12643,3999,1.84792e+06,44132,792,3.61119e+06,635,1.12292e+06,0


Converting to forward existential form...Done !
original formula: A((!(AF(EX(((i5.u1.next_0==1)&&(u3.ncs_4_4==1))))) + AF(((EG(((u0.slot_F.F.F.F.F.F==1)&&(u0.cs_2_3==1))) + E(((i2.u5.next_5==1)&&(i5.u1.n...284
=> equivalent forward existential formula: [((Init * !(EG(!(!(EG(!((i6.u6.p1_1_7==1)))))))) * !(E(!(!(EG(!((i6.u6.p1_1_7==1))))) U (!((!(!(EG(!(EX(((i5.u1....439
Reverse transition relation is NOT exact ! Due to transitions t0, t1, t2, t6, t7, t8, t9, t47, t48, t60, t80, t90, t100, t103, t104, t106, t107, t110, t116...1319
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 6
Fast SCC detection found an SCC at level 7
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
(forward)formula 0,0,311.087,2365632,1,0,4.0753e+06,427098,1942,6.47312e+06,1867,2.45476e+06,9236996
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2025-03 FALSE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL USE_NUPN
Formula is FALSE !

***************************************

original formula: !(A((((!((AG((i6.u6.p1_4_7==1)) + A(((i2.u5.next_6==1)&&(u2.ncs_0_2==1)) U ((u0.slot_F.F.F.F.F.F==1)&&(u0.cs_5_1==1))))) + ((u3.next_4==1...644
=> equivalent forward existential formula: ([((FwdU(Init,!(!(!(EG(!(!(E(((i5.u1.next_1==1)&&(u3.ncs_4_3==1)) U ((i6.u6.next_7==1)&&(i6.u15.ncs_5_5==1))))))...1070
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
Using saturation style SCC detection
(forward)formula 1,1,424.217,2434752,1,0,4.20875e+06,427098,3241,6.47312e+06,2297,2.45476e+06,8170464
FORMULA Anderson-PT-06-CTLFireability-2023-12 TRUE TECHNIQUES DECISION_DIAGRAMS TOPOLOGICAL USE_NUPN
Formula is TRUE !

***************************************

ITS tools runner thread asked to quit. Dying gracefully.
Total runtime 1164478 ms.

BK_STOP 1748542771908

--------------------
content from stderr:

+ export BINDIR=/home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//../
+ BINDIR=/home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//../
++ pwd
+ export MODEL=/home/mcc/execution
+ MODEL=/home/mcc/execution
+ [[ CTLFireability = StateSpace ]]
+ /home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//..//runeclipse.sh /home/mcc/execution CTLFireability -its -ltsmin -greatspnpath /home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//..//greatspn/ -order META -manyOrder -smt -timeout 3600
+ ulimit -s 65536
+ [[ -z '' ]]
+ export LTSMIN_MEM_SIZE=8589934592
+ LTSMIN_MEM_SIZE=8589934592
++ sed s/.jar//
++ perl -pe 's/.*\.//g'
++ ls /home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//..//itstools/plugins/fr.lip6.move.gal.application.pnmcc_1.0.0.202505121319.jar
+ VERSION=202505121319
+ echo 'Running Version 202505121319'
+ /home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//..//itstools/its-tools -pnfolder /home/mcc/execution -examination CTLFireability -its -ltsmin -greatspnpath /home/mcc/BenchKit/bin//../itstools/bin//..//greatspn/ -order META -manyOrder -smt -timeout 3600

Sequence of Actions to be Executed by the VM

This is useful if one wants to reexecute the tool in the VM from the submitted image disk.

set -x
# this is for BenchKit: configuration of major elements for the test
export BK_INPUT="Anderson-PT-06"
export BK_EXAMINATION="CTLFireability"
export BK_TOOL="itstools"
export BK_RESULT_DIR="/tmp/BK_RESULTS/OUTPUTS"
export BK_TIME_CONFINEMENT="3600"
export BK_MEMORY_CONFINEMENT="16384"
export BK_BIN_PATH="/home/mcc/BenchKit/bin/"

# this is specific to your benchmark or test

export BIN_DIR="$HOME/BenchKit/bin"

# remove the execution directoty if it exists (to avoid increse of .vmdk images)
if [ -d execution ] ; then
rm -rf execution
fi

# this is for BenchKit: explicit launching of the test
echo "====================================================================="
echo " Generated by BenchKit 2-5832"
echo " Executing tool itstools"
echo " Input is Anderson-PT-06, examination is CTLFireability"
echo " Time confinement is $BK_TIME_CONFINEMENT seconds"
echo " Memory confinement is 16384 MBytes"
echo " Number of cores is 4"
echo " Run identifier is r002-tall-174853728700162"
echo "====================================================================="
echo
echo "--------------------"
echo "preparation of the directory to be used:"

tar xzf /home/mcc/BenchKit/INPUTS/Anderson-PT-06.tgz
mv Anderson-PT-06 execution
cd execution
if [ "CTLFireability" = "ReachabilityDeadlock" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "UpperBounds" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "QuasiLiveness" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "StableMarking" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "Liveness" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "OneSafe" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "StateSpace" ]; then
rm -f GenericPropertiesVerdict.xml
fi
pwd
ls -lh

echo
echo "--------------------"
echo "content from stdout:"
echo
echo "=== Data for post analysis generated by BenchKit (invocation template)"
echo
if [ "CTLFireability" = "UpperBounds" ] ; then
echo "The expected result is a vector of positive values"
echo NUM_VECTOR
elif [ "CTLFireability" != "StateSpace" ] ; then
echo "The expected result is a vector of booleans"
echo BOOL_VECTOR
else
echo "no data necessary for post analysis"
fi
echo
if [ -f "CTLFireability.xml" ] ; then # for cunf (txt files deleted;-)
echo echo "here is the order used to build the result vector(from xml file)"
for x in $(grep '' CTLFireability.xml | cut -d '>' -f 2 | cut -d '<' -f 1 | sort -u) ; do
echo "FORMULA_NAME $x"
done
elif [ "CTLFireability" = "ReachabilityDeadlock" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "QuasiLiveness" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "StableMarking" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "Liveness" ] || [ "CTLFireability" = "OneSafe" ] ; then
echo "FORMULA_NAME CTLFireability"
fi
echo
echo "=== Now, execution of the tool begins"
echo
echo -n "BK_START "
date -u +%s%3N
echo
timeout -s 9 $BK_TIME_CONFINEMENT bash -c "/home/mcc/BenchKit/BenchKit_head.sh 2> STDERR ; echo ; echo -n \"BK_STOP \" ; date -u +%s%3N"
if [ $? -eq 137 ] ; then
echo
echo "BK_TIME_CONFINEMENT_REACHED"
fi
echo
echo "--------------------"
echo "content from stderr:"
echo
cat STDERR ;