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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.struct do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability 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.struct' 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.struct versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct LTSMin Both tools   M4M.struct LTSMin
All computed OK 102 485 90   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LTSMin 98 Times tool wins 336 532
M4M.struct > LTSMin 51   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LTSMin 42 Times tool wins 285 583
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 2 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 562 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 M4M.struct computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct Tapaal Both tools   M4M.struct Tapaal
All computed OK 10 560 79   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Tapaal 11 Times tool wins 283 660
M4M.struct > Tapaal 56   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Tapaal 227 Times tool wins 292 651
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 559 10 3


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.struct computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus LoLA

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct LoLA Both tools   M4M.struct LoLA
All computed OK 28 523 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LoLA 3 Times tool wins 185 721
M4M.struct > LoLA 80   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LoLA 213 Times tool wins 317 589
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 522 28 40


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.struct computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus M4M.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct M4M.full Both tools   M4M.struct M4M.full
All computed OK 0 149 67   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = M4M.full 223 Times tool wins 229 303
M4M.struct > M4M.full 88   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < M4M.full 5 Times tool wins 219 313
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 147 0 415


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct ITS-Tools Both tools   M4M.struct ITS-Tools
All computed OK 178 220 127   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools 26 Times tool wins 367 236
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools 2   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools 50 Times tool wins 205 398
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 219 179 343


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.struct computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus ITS-Tools.L

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct ITS-Tools.L Both tools   M4M.struct ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 182 200 118   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools.L 10 Times tool wins 374 209
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools.L 14   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools.L 59 Times tool wins 231 352
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 199 183 363


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.struct computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.L wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct GreatSPN Both tools   M4M.struct GreatSPN
All computed OK 230 179 117   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 258 304
M4M.struct > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < GreatSPN 35 Times tool wins 255 307
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 177 230 385


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 M4M.struct computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus Irma.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct Irma.full Both tools   M4M.struct Irma.full
All computed OK 6 176 120   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.full 192 Times tool wins 202 357
M4M.struct > Irma.full 30   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.full 35 Times tool wins 148 411
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 174 6 388


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.struct computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus Irma.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct Irma.struct Both tools   M4M.struct Irma.struct
All computed OK 8 175 120   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.struct 191 Times tool wins 175 383
M4M.struct > Irma.struct 29   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.struct 35 Times tool wins 149 409
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 173 8 389


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.struct computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart