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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools 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' 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 124 77 268   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin 19 Times tool wins 127 617
ITS-Tools > LTSMin 223   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin 33 Times tool wins 391 353
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 141 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 Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal
All computed OK 0 111 417   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 8 Times tool wins 1 777
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 39   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 203 Times tool wins 182 596
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 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 computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal 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 9 105 331   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 10 Times tool wins 53 719
ITS-Tools > LoLA 134   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 183 Times tool wins 256 516
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 105 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 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 231 103 195   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = M4M.full 44 Times tool wins 282 488
ITS-Tools > M4M.full 92   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < M4M.full 105 Times tool wins 424 346
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 103 231 38


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 261 68 212   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = M4M.struct 59 Times tool wins 337 398
ITS-Tools > M4M.struct 55   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < M4M.struct 80 Times tool wins 453 282
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 68 261 73


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 41 26 400   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-Tools.L 128 Times tool wins 346 347
ITS-Tools > ITS-Tools.L 52   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-Tools.L 46 Times tool wins 300 393
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 41 115


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 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 GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools GreatSPN
All computed OK 371 7 259   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 371 303
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 18   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 15 Times tool wins 499 175
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 371 134


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 GreatSPN, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN 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 216 110 231   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Irma.full 11 Times tool wins 236 541
ITS-Tools > Irma.full 97   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Irma.full 112 Times tool wins 401 376
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 110 216 31


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 219 111 226   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Irma.struct 11 Times tool wins 241 537
ITS-Tools > Irma.struct 100   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Irma.struct 111 Times tool wins 402 376
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 219 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 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