fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
LTSMin compared to other tools («Surprise» models, UpperBounds)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for Tapaal, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Tapaal Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal
All computed OK 31 0 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 50 89
LTSMin > Tapaal 2   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Tapaal 72 Times tool wins 82 57
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 31 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 LTSMin computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for LoLA, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin LoLA Both tools   LTSMin LoLA
All computed OK 16 0 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = LoLA 1 Times tool wins 29 110
LTSMin > LoLA 2   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < LoLA 86 Times tool wins 30 109
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 16 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 LTSMin computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for M4M.full, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin M4M.full Both tools   LTSMin M4M.full
All computed OK 139 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 139 0
LTSMin > M4M.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 139 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 139 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 LTSMin computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for M4M.struct, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin M4M.struct Both tools   LTSMin M4M.struct
All computed OK 139 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 139 0
LTSMin > M4M.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 139 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 139 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 LTSMin computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for ITS-Tools, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
All computed OK 75 0 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 139 0
LTSMin > ITS-Tools 1   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools 29 Times tool wins 89 50
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 75 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 LTSMin computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to ITS-Tools.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin ITS-Tools.L Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 84 0 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 139 0
LTSMin > ITS-Tools.L 1   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools.L 21 Times tool wins 100 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 84 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 LTSMin computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for GreatSPN, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin GreatSPN Both tools   LTSMin GreatSPN
All computed OK 89 0 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 89 50
LTSMin > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < GreatSPN 20 Times tool wins 91 48
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 89 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 LTSMin computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for smart, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin smart Both tools   LTSMin smart
All computed OK 109 0 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = smart 0 Times tool wins 115 24
LTSMin > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < smart 8 Times tool wins 122 17
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 109 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 LTSMin computed more values than smart, denote cases where LTSMin computed less values than smart, 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for Irma.full, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Irma.full Both tools   LTSMin Irma.full
All computed OK 139 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 139 0
LTSMin > Irma.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 139 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 139 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 LTSMin computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin and 139 for Irma.struct, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Irma.struct Both tools   LTSMin Irma.struct
All computed OK 139 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 139 0
LTSMin > Irma.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 139 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 139 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 LTSMin computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart