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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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' 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 versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools 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 to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
All computed OK 125 67 228   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin 33 Times tool wins 256 495
ITS-Tools > LTSMin 119   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin 179 Times tool wins 242 509
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 2 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 122 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 computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools 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 to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLA
All computed OK 7 91 271   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 30 Times tool wins 123 652
ITS-Tools > LoLA 119   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 257 Times tool wins 253 522
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 5 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 computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools 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 to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools M4M.full Both tools   ITS-Tools M4M.full
All computed OK 244 83 136   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = M4M.full 30 Times tool wins 333 434
ITS-Tools > M4M.full 176   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < M4M.full 98 Times tool wins 455 312
Do not compete 0 20 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 90 233 32


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools 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 to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools M4M.struct Both tools   ITS-Tools M4M.struct
All computed OK 215 92 142   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = M4M.struct 31 Times tool wins 315 461
ITS-Tools > M4M.struct 190   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < M4M.struct 106 Times tool wins 431 345
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 90 215 32


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus ITS-Tools.L

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools and 808 for ITS-Tools.L, 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 to ITS-Tools.L are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools ITS-Tools.L Both tools   ITS-Tools ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 10 16 355   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-Tools.L 180 Times tool wins 314 386
ITS-Tools > ITS-Tools.L 88   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-Tools.L 51 Times tool wins 272 428
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 10 106


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

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools 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 to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Irma.full Both tools   ITS-Tools Irma.full
All computed OK 236 90 172   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Irma.full 26 Times tool wins 325 449
ITS-Tools > Irma.full 153   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Irma.full 97 Times tool wins 450 324
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 237 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 computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1616 runs (808 for ITS-Tools 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 to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Irma.struct Both tools   ITS-Tools Irma.struct
All computed OK 235 90 173   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Irma.struct 27 Times tool wins 325 449
ITS-Tools > Irma.struct 153   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Irma.struct 96 Times tool wins 451 323
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 236 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 computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart