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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools.L do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 144 68 266   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LTSMin 16 Times tool wins 147 625
ITS-Tools.L > LTSMin 229   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LTSMin 49 Times tool wins 386 386
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 104 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 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 0 101 402   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Tapaal 9 Times tool wins 6 799
ITS-Tools.L > Tapaal 20   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Tapaal 273 Times tool wins 65 740
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 101 0 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 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 16 80 337   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LoLA 2 Times tool wins 46 738
ITS-Tools.L > LoLA 80   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LoLA 269 Times tool wins 215 569
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 80 15 24


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 328 59 197   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.full 25 Times tool wins 357 406
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.full 44   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.full 110 Times tool wins 500 263
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 59 328 45


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 249 71 211   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.struct 58 Times tool wins 330 445
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.struct 66   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.struct 120 Times tool wins 437 338
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 71 249 33


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 21 18 413   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = ITS-Tools 195 Times tool wins 350 372
ITS-Tools.L > ITS-Tools 35   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < ITS-Tools 40 Times tool wins 218 504
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 21 86


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 414 4 257   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 415 293
ITS-Tools.L > GreatSPN 20   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < GreatSPN 11 Times tool wins 533 175
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 414 100


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 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 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 223 82 226   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.full 3 Times tool wins 239 547
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.full 81   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.full 171 Times tool wins 393 393
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 82 223 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 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 219 82 225   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.struct 6 Times tool wins 241 545
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.struct 83   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.struct 171 Times tool wins 389 397
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 82 219 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 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