fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
ITS-Tools.L compared to other tools («Known» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools.L do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 ITS-Tools.L' 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).

ITS-Tools.L versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools.L LTSMin
All computed OK 180 24 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LTSMin 260 Times tool wins 180 284
ITS-Tools.L > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 349 115
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 131 106 237


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools.L Tapaal
All computed OK 253 14 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Tapaal 187 Times tool wins 253 201
ITS-Tools.L > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 320 134
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 253 354


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools.L LoLA
All computed OK 440 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 440 0
ITS-Tools.L > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 440 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 440 368


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L M4M.full Both tools   ITS-Tools.L M4M.full
All computed OK 230 34 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.full 38 Times tool wins 234 240
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.full 7   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.full 165 Times tool wins 398 76
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 34 230 334


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

ITS-Tools.L wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L M4M.struct Both tools   ITS-Tools.L M4M.struct
All computed OK 232 38 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.struct 55 Times tool wins 235 243
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.struct 7   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.struct 146 Times tool wins 397 81
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 232 330


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

ITS-Tools.L wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L ITS-Tools Both tools   ITS-Tools.L ITS-Tools
All computed OK 39 58 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = ITS-Tools 401 Times tool wins 246 252
ITS-Tools.L > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 217 281
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 58 39 310


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools.L GreatSPN
All computed OK 34 121 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 34 527
ITS-Tools.L > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < GreatSPN 402 Times tool wins 113 448
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 121 34 247


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L and 808 for smart, 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 ITS-Tools.L to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L smart Both tools   ITS-Tools.L smart
All computed OK 203 41 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = smart 0 Times tool wins 203 278
ITS-Tools.L > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < smart 237 Times tool wins 318 163
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 147 129 221


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than smart, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L and 808 for TINA.tedd, 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 ITS-Tools.L to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L TINA.tedd Both tools   ITS-Tools.L TINA.tedd
All computed OK 18 108 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 18 530
ITS-Tools.L > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < TINA.tedd 422 Times tool wins 159 389
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 18 260


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than TINA.tedd, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L computed less values than TINA.tedd, 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L Irma.full Both tools   ITS-Tools.L Irma.full
All computed OK 218 71 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.full 48 Times tool wins 225 286
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.full 28   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.full 146 Times tool wins 382 129
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 71 210 297


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools.L 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 ITS-Tools.L to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L Irma.struct Both tools   ITS-Tools.L Irma.struct
All computed OK 218 70 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.struct 48 Times tool wins 224 286
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.struct 28   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.struct 146 Times tool wins 380 130
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 70 210 298


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart