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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools.L do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 128 96 258   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LTSMin 15 Times tool wins 130 618
ITS-Tools.L > LTSMin 208   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LTSMin 43 Times tool wins 376 372
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 156 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 0 126 388   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Tapaal 5 Times tool wins 1 777
ITS-Tools.L > Tapaal 39   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Tapaal 220 Times tool wins 187 591
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 126 0 30


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 9 120 301   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LoLA 4 Times tool wins 48 724
ITS-Tools.L > LoLA 133   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LoLA 205 Times tool wins 248 524
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 120 9 36


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 221 108 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.full 35 Times tool wins 272 488
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.full 103   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.full 112 Times tool wins 425 335
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 221 48


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 252 74 203   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.struct 45 Times tool wins 326 400
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.struct 66   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.struct 86 Times tool wins 454 272
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 74 252 82


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 26 41 400   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = ITS-Tools 128 Times tool wins 346 347
ITS-Tools.L > ITS-Tools 46   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < ITS-Tools 52 Times tool wins 210 483
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 26 115


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 359 10 261   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 359 303
ITS-Tools.L > GreatSPN 19   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < GreatSPN 9 Times tool wins 480 182
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 359 146


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 205 114 216   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.full 9 Times tool wins 224 542
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.full 106   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.full 116 Times tool wins 397 369
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 114 205 42


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 206 113 212   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.struct 9 Times tool wins 228 537
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.struct 110   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.struct 115 Times tool wins 396 369
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 113 206 43


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