fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
Irma.full%20compared%20to%20other%20tools%20(%C2%ABAll%C2%BB%20models,%20ReachabilityFireability)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how Irma.full do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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 Irma.full' 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).

Irma.full versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for LTSMin, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full LTSMin Both tools   Irma.full LTSMin
All computed OK 121 319 148   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LTSMin 28 Times tool wins 513 367
Irma.full > LTSMin 210   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LTSMin 54 Times tool wins 445 435
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 386 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 Irma.full computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for Tapaal, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full Tapaal Both tools   Irma.full Tapaal
All computed OK 13 364 321   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Tapaal 7 Times tool wins 134 791
Irma.full > Tapaal 42   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Tapaal 178 Times tool wins 293 632
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 364 13 22


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 Irma.full computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for LoLA, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full LoLA Both tools   Irma.full LoLA
All computed OK 24 361 283   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LoLA 47 Times tool wins 135 787
Irma.full > LoLA 77   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LoLA 130 Times tool wins 345 577
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 361 24 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 Irma.full computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for M4M.full, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full M4M.full Both tools   Irma.full M4M.full
All computed OK 24 2 309   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.full 118 Times tool wins 339 224
Irma.full > M4M.full 57   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.full 53 Times tool wins 337 226
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 24 384


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 Irma.full computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for M4M.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full M4M.struct Both tools   Irma.full M4M.struct
All computed OK 88 1 306   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.struct 51 Times tool wins 385 177
Irma.full > M4M.struct 47   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.struct 69 Times tool wins 380 182
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 88 385


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 Irma.full computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for ITS-Tools, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full ITS-Tools Both tools   Irma.full ITS-Tools
All computed OK 110 312 231   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools 11 Times tool wins 541 332
Irma.full > ITS-Tools 112   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools 97 Times tool wins 370 503
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 312 110 74


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

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for ITS-Tools.L, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to ITS-Tools.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full ITS-Tools.L Both tools   Irma.full ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 114 297 216   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools.L 9 Times tool wins 542 316
Irma.full > ITS-Tools.L 116   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools.L 106 Times tool wins 365 493
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 297 114 89


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

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for GreatSPN, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full GreatSPN Both tools   Irma.full GreatSPN
All computed OK 392 166 136   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 445 282
Irma.full > GreatSPN 8   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < GreatSPN 21 Times tool wins 436 291
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 166 392 220


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 Irma.full computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for Irma.struct, so there are 947 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Irma.full to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full Irma.struct Both tools   Irma.full Irma.struct
All computed OK 4 2 343   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Irma.struct 201 Times tool wins 277 286
Irma.full > Irma.struct 9   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Irma.struct 4 Times tool wins 268 295
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 4 384


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 Irma.full computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart