fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
smart compared to other tools (
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents smart' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others corresponds to situations where the challenging tool performs better.

You might also find plots out of the range that denote the case were at least one tool could not answer appropriately (error, time-out, could not compute or did not competed).

smart versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for LTSMin, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart LTSMin Both tools   smart LTSMin
All computed OK 0 348 236   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LTSMin 1 Times tool wins 253 375
smart > LTSMin 42   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LTSMin 1 Times tool wins 189 439
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 348 0 0


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where smart computed less values than LTSMin, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for Tapaal, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart Tapaal Both tools   smart Tapaal
All computed OK 31 326 224   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 101 505
smart > Tapaal 24   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Tapaal 1 Times tool wins 186 420
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 240 123 108


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where smart computed less values than Tapaal, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for LoLA, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart LoLA Both tools   smart LoLA
All computed OK 2 463 211   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = LoLA 1 Times tool wins 56 687
smart > LoLA 65   Shortest Execution Time
smart < LoLA 1 Times tool wins 92 651
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 323 42 25


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where smart computed less values than LoLA, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for M4M.full, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart M4M.full Both tools   smart M4M.full
All computed OK 144 280 130   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = M4M.full 1 Times tool wins 263 297
smart > M4M.full 5   Shortest Execution Time
smart < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 240 320
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 164 207 184


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where smart computed less values than M4M.full, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for M4M.struct, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart M4M.struct Both tools   smart M4M.struct
All computed OK 146 127 130   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = M4M.struct 1 Times tool wins 273 134
smart > M4M.struct 3   Shortest Execution Time
smart < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 249 158
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 87 285 261


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where smart computed less values than M4M.struct, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for ITS-Tools, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart ITS-Tools Both tools   smart ITS-Tools
All computed OK 30 205 248   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 279 206
smart > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 154 331
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 128 133 220


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where smart computed less values than ITS-Tools, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to ITS-Tools.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart ITS-Tools.L Both tools   smart ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 47 194 226   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = ITS-Tools.L 1 Times tool wins 279 195
smart > ITS-Tools.L 5   Shortest Execution Time
smart < ITS-Tools.L 1 Times tool wins 166 308
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 120 153 228


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where smart computed less values than ITS-Tools.L, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.L wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for GreatSPN, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart GreatSPN Both tools   smart GreatSPN
All computed OK 5 227 273   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 67 440
smart > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
smart < GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 62 445
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 153 111 195


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where smart computed less values than GreatSPN, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for Irma.full, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart Irma.full Both tools   smart Irma.full
All computed OK 135 407 138   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Irma.full 1 Times tool wins 261 426
smart > Irma.full 6   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 229 458
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 291 199 57


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where smart computed less values than Irma.full, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

smart versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for smart and 808 for Irma.struct, so there are 808 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smart to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  smart Irma.struct Both tools   smart Irma.struct
All computed OK 135 407 137   Smallest Memory Footprint
smart = Irma.struct 1 Times tool wins 264 423
smart > Irma.struct 7   Shortest Execution Time
smart < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 228 459
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 291 199 57


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where smart computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where smart computed less values than Irma.struct, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smart wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart