Model Checking Contest 2022
12th edition, Bergen, Norway, June 21, 2022
smpt compared to other tools (��Surprise�� models, ReachabilityCardinality)
Last Updated
Jun 22, 2022

# Introduction

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

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents smpt' 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).

# smpt versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 412 runs (206 for smpt and 206 for GreatSPN, so there are 206 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smpt to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

 Statistics on the executions smpt GreatSPN Both tools smpt GreatSPN All computed OK 102 0 39 Smallest Memory Footprint smpt = GreatSPN — — 3 Times tool wins 148 46 smpt > GreatSPN — — 11 Shortest Execution Time smpt < GreatSPN — — 39 Times tool wins 119 75 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 102 12

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 smpt computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where smpt 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.

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

# smpt versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 412 runs (206 for smpt and 206 for ITS-Tools, so there are 206 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smpt to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

 Statistics on the executions smpt ITS-Tools Both tools smpt ITS-Tools All computed OK 0 12 63 Smallest Memory Footprint smpt = ITS-Tools — — 16 Times tool wins 57 149 smpt > ITS-Tools — — 7 Shortest Execution Time smpt < ITS-Tools — — 108 Times tool wins 29 177 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 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 smpt computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where smpt 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.

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

# smpt versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 412 runs (206 for smpt and 206 for Tapaal, so there are 206 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smpt to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

 Statistics on the executions smpt Tapaal Both tools smpt Tapaal All computed OK 0 12 63 Smallest Memory Footprint smpt = Tapaal — — 24 Times tool wins 21 185 smpt > Tapaal — — 7 Shortest Execution Time smpt < Tapaal — — 100 Times tool wins 17 189 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 0 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 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 smpt computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where smpt 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.

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

# smpt versus 2021-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 412 runs (206 for smpt and 206 for 2021-gold, so there are 206 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing smpt to 2021-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

 Statistics on the executions smpt 2021-gold Both tools smpt 2021-gold All computed OK 1 12 63 Smallest Memory Footprint smpt = 2021-gold — — 20 Times tool wins 74 132 smpt > 2021-gold — — 6 Shortest Execution Time smpt < 2021-gold — — 104 Times tool wins 37 169 Do not compete 0 0 0 Error detected 0 1 0 Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 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 smpt computed more values than 2021-gold, denote cases where smpt computed less values than 2021-gold, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

smpt wins when points are below the diagonal, 2021-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.