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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 190 15 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin 269 Times tool wins 190 284
ITS-Tools > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 371 103
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 115 109 234


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 271 13 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 188 Times tool wins 271 201
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 352 120
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 271 336


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 459 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 459 0
ITS-Tools > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 459 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 459 349


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 242 27 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = M4M.full 46 Times tool wins 246 240
ITS-Tools > M4M.full 7   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < M4M.full 164 Times tool wins 429 57
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 242 322


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 237 24 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = M4M.struct 67 Times tool wins 241 242
ITS-Tools > M4M.struct 7   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < M4M.struct 148 Times tool wins 425 58
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 24 237 325


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 58 39 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-Tools.L 401 Times tool wins 251 247
ITS-Tools > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 280 218
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 58 310


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 33 101 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 6 Times tool wins 33 527
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 420 Times tool wins 111 449
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 101 33 248


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 smart

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

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools smart Both tools   ITS-Tools smart
All computed OK 211 30 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = smart 0 Times tool wins 211 278
ITS-Tools > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < smart 248 Times tool wins 337 152
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 130 131 219


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 smart, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than smart, 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, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TINA.tedd

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

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools TINA.tedd Both tools   ITS-Tools TINA.tedd
All computed OK 25 96 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 26 529
ITS-Tools > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < TINA.tedd 434 Times tool wins 176 379
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 96 25 253


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 TINA.tedd, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than TINA.tedd, 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, TINA.tedd 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 223 57 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Irma.full 57 Times tool wins 229 287
ITS-Tools > Irma.full 28   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Irma.full 151 Times tool wins 401 115
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 215 292


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 224 57 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Irma.struct 56 Times tool wins 229 287
ITS-Tools > Irma.struct 28   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Irma.struct 151 Times tool wins 398 118
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 216 292


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