# Performance Report: theory_nseq vs theory_seq vs ZIPT ## Results Table | # | Benchmark | seq | t(s) | nseq | t(s) | zipt | t(s) | Notes | |---|-----------|-----|------|------|------|------|------|-------| | 1 | 20230329-automatark-lu/instance00000.smt2 | sat | 0.492 | timeout | 10.099 | sat | 0.460 | nseqseq** **nseq>zipt** | | 15 | 20250411-negated-predicates/diseq-None-4-5-107.smt2 | timeout | 10.411 | sat | 0.437 | timeout | 10.000 | **nseq>seq** **nseq>zipt** | | 16 | 20250411-negated-predicates/not-contains-1-4-5-112.smt2 | timeout | 10.445 | unknown | 0.430 | sat | 0.404 | nseqseq** | | 45 | track02/02_track_4.smt2 | timeout | 10.072 | sat | 0.723 | sat | 6.008 | **nseq>seq** | | 46 | track02/02_track_7.smt2 | timeout | 10.428 | sat | 0.644 | sat | 2.855 | **nseq>seq** | | 47 | track03/03_track_1.smt2 | unsat | 0.065 | unsat | 0.080 | unsat | 0.472 | | | 48 | track03/03_track_144.smt2 | sat | 0.086 | sat | 0.075 | sat | 0.832 | | | 49 | track03/03_track_19.smt2 | unsat | 0.094 | unsat | 0.077 | unsat | 0.388 | | | 50 | track03/03_track_54.smt2 | timeout | 10.448 | unsat | 0.482 | unsat | 0.508 | **nseq>seq** | | 51 | track04/04_track_1.smt2 | sat | 0.067 | sat | 0.062 | sat | 0.367 | | | 52 | track04/04_track_144.smt2 | unsat | 0.088 | unsat | 0.072 | unsat | 0.515 | | | 53 | track04/04_track_19.smt2 | unsat | 0.084 | unsat | 0.068 | unsat | 0.467 | | | 54 | track04/04_track_54.smt2 | sat | 0.085 | sat | 0.084 | sat | 0.462 | | ## Summary Statistics - **Benchmarks solved (sat/unsat)**: seq=30, nseq=22, zipt=35 (out of 54) - **Total solve time (solved only)**: seq=15.3s, nseq=5.0s, zipt=26.0s - **nseq wins vs seq**: 6 benchmarks solved by nseq but not seq - **nseq wins vs zipt**: 2 benchmarks solved by nseq but not zipt - **nseq loses vs seq**: 14 benchmarks solved by seq but not nseq - **nseq loses vs zipt**: 15 benchmarks solved by zipt but not nseq ## Potential Soundness Issues - **#12 20250411-hornstr-equiv/dining-cryptographers_sat_non_incre_equiv_init_0_3.smt2**: seq=sat, nseq=unsat, zipt=sat ## Worst nseq Regressions Benchmarks where nseq is worse than both seq and zipt: 1. **20230329-automatark-lu/instance00000.smt2** — seq=sat(0.492s), nseq=timeout(10.099s), zipt=sat(0.46s) 2. **20230329-automatark-lu/instance05331.smt2** — seq=sat(0.469s), nseq=timeout(10.083s), zipt=sat(0.496s) 3. **20230329-automatark-lu/instance10662.smt2** — seq=unsat(0.511s), nseq=timeout(10.087s), zipt=unsat(0.489s) 4. **queries-no-ree/query3231.smt2** — seq=sat(0.444s), nseq=unknown(0.474s), zipt=sat(0.422s) 5. **20250411-hornstr-equiv/Burns_lstar_non_incre_equiv_bad_0_0.smt2** — seq=sat(0.123s), nseq=unknown(0.093s), zipt=sat(0.503s) 6. **slog/slog_stranger_3947_sink.smt2** — seq=sat(0.218s), nseq=unknown(0.094s), zipt=sat(0.575s) 7. **queries-no-ree/query5519.smt2** — seq=sat(0.222s), nseq=unknown(0.09s), zipt=sat(0.418s) 8. **queries/query6481.smt2** — seq=sat(0.218s), nseq=unknown(0.069s), zipt=sat(0.433s) 9. **queries/query3664.smt2** — seq=sat(0.271s), nseq=unknown(0.072s), zipt=sat(0.424s) 10. **queries/query2885.smt2** — seq=sat(0.886s), nseq=unknown(0.093s), zipt=sat(0.386s) ## nseq Strengths (where nseq beats seq or zipt) - **20250411-negated-predicates/diseq-1-3-5-0.smt2**: seq=timeout(10.067s), nseq=sat(0.461s), zipt=timeout(10.0s) - **20250411-negated-predicates/diseq-None-4-5-107.smt2**: seq=timeout(10.411s), nseq=sat(0.437s), zipt=timeout(10.0s) - **track02/02_track_1.smt2**: seq=timeout(10.075s), nseq=sat(0.523s), zipt=sat(0.594s) - **track02/02_track_4.smt2**: seq=timeout(10.072s), nseq=sat(0.723s), zipt=sat(6.008s) - **track02/02_track_7.smt2**: seq=timeout(10.428s), nseq=sat(0.644s), zipt=sat(2.855s) - **track03/03_track_54.smt2**: seq=timeout(10.448s), nseq=unsat(0.482s), zipt=unsat(0.508s)