fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
M4M.full compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityDeadlock)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.full do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 M4M.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).

M4M.full versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full LTSMin Both tools   M4M.full LTSMin
All computed OK 294 207 136   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LTSMin 3 Times tool wins 435 238
M4M.full > LTSMin 22   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LTSMin 11 Times tool wins 367 306
Do not compete 0 181 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 273 179 208


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full Tapaal Both tools   M4M.full Tapaal
All computed OK 56 402 307   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 94 774
M4M.full > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Tapaal 103 Times tool wins 87 781
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 402 56 79


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full LoLA Both tools   M4M.full LoLA
All computed OK 70 359 308   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 79 746
M4M.full > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LoLA 88 Times tool wins 83 742
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 359 70 122


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full M4M.struct Both tools   M4M.full M4M.struct
All computed OK 112 18 230   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = M4M.struct 111 Times tool wins 305 179
M4M.full > M4M.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < M4M.struct 13 Times tool wins 275 209
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 112 463


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full ITS-Tools Both tools   M4M.full ITS-Tools
All computed OK 150 381 225   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 437 410
M4M.full > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools 91 Times tool wins 204 643
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 381 150 100


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to ITS-Tools.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full ITS-Tools.L Both tools   M4M.full ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 129 402 239   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 436 432
M4M.full > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools.L 98 Times tool wins 197 671
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 402 129 79


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full GreatSPN Both tools   M4M.full GreatSPN
All computed OK 284 247 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 323 390
M4M.full > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < GreatSPN 48 Times tool wins 321 392
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 247 284 234


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.full and 947 for Irma.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 M4M.full to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full Irma.full Both tools   M4M.full Irma.full
All computed OK 2 78 315   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.full 132 Times tool wins 219 325
M4M.full > Irma.full 1   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.full 16 Times tool wins 193 351
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 78 2 403


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1894 runs (947 for M4M.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 M4M.full to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full Irma.struct Both tools   M4M.full Irma.struct
All computed OK 1 78 315   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.struct 133 Times tool wins 218 326
M4M.full > Irma.struct 1   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.struct 16 Times tool wins 218 326
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 78 1 403


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

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

memory chart time chart