fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
Irma.full compared to other tools («All» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how Irma.full do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 146 170 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LTSMin 13 Times tool wins 258 205
Irma.full > LTSMin 111   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LTSMin 23 Times tool wins 224 239
Do not compete 0 172 8
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 301 104 345


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 191 113 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Tapaal 5 Times tool wins 208 198
Irma.full > Tapaal 83   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Tapaal 14 Times tool wins 224 182
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 197 535


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 293 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 293 0
Irma.full > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 293 0
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 301 646


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 60 11 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.full 8 Times tool wins 175 129
Irma.full > M4M.full 32   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.full 64 Times tool wins 207 97
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 60 643


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 58 11 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.struct 19 Times tool wins 209 95
Irma.full > M4M.struct 56   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.struct 57 Times tool wins 214 90
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 58 643


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 57 287 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools 57 Times tool wins 287 293
Irma.full > ITS-Tools 151   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools 28 Times tool wins 115 465
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 279 57 367


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 71 276 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools.L 48 Times tool wins 286 283
Irma.full > ITS-Tools.L 146   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools.L 28 Times tool wins 129 440
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 268 71 378


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 17 308 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 67 534
Irma.full > GreatSPN 16   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < GreatSPN 78 Times tool wins 102 499
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 300 17 346


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 smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for smart, 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 smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full smart Both tools   Irma.full smart
All computed OK 153 169 115   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = smart 0 Times tool wins 160 302
Irma.full > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < smart 25 Times tool wins 210 252
Do not compete 0 172 8
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 300 112 346


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 smart, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for Irma.full and 947 for TINA.tedd, 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 TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full TINA.tedd Both tools   Irma.full TINA.tedd
All computed OK 20 316 192   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 258 351
Irma.full > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < TINA.tedd 81 Times tool wins 124 485
Do not compete 8 0 0
Error detected 0 6 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 314 20 332


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 TINA.tedd, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd 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 1 0 206   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Irma.struct 86 Times tool wins 232 61
Irma.full > Irma.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 157 136
Do not compete 0 0 8
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 646


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