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

Introduction

This page presents how Irma.full 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 Irma.full' 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).

Irma.full versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full LTSMin Both tools   Irma.full LTSMin
All computed OK 123 188 150   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LTSMin 16 Times tool wins 535 216
Irma.full > LTSMin 225   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LTSMin 49 Times tool wins 450 301
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 245 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 Irma.full computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full Tapaal Both tools   Irma.full Tapaal
All computed OK 1 243 365   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Tapaal 17 Times tool wins 116 690
Irma.full > Tapaal 32   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Tapaal 148 Times tool wins 150 656
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 243 1 2


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 Irma.full computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus LoLA

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full LoLA Both tools   Irma.full LoLA
All computed OK 21 226 321   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LoLA 35 Times tool wins 97 692
Irma.full > LoLA 71   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LoLA 115 Times tool wins 327 462
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 226 20 19


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 Irma.full computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus M4M.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full M4M.full Both tools   Irma.full M4M.full
All computed OK 131 3 324   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.full 36 Times tool wins 359 207
Irma.full > M4M.full 57   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.full 15 Times tool wins 399 167
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 131 242


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 Irma.full computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus M4M.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full M4M.struct Both tools   Irma.full M4M.struct
All computed OK 40 3 333   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.struct 42 Times tool wins 365 201
Irma.full > M4M.struct 78   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.struct 70 Times tool wins 390 176
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 40 242


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 Irma.full computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full ITS-Tools Both tools   Irma.full ITS-Tools
All computed OK 85 223 233   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools 3 Times tool wins 548 238
Irma.full > ITS-Tools 163   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools 79 Times tool wins 376 410
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 223 85 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 Irma.full computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus ITS-Tools.L

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full ITS-Tools.L Both tools   Irma.full ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 82 223 226   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools.L 3 Times tool wins 547 239
Irma.full > ITS-Tools.L 171   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools.L 81 Times tool wins 390 396
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 223 82 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 Irma.full computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full GreatSPN Both tools   Irma.full GreatSPN
All computed OK 394 125 147   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = GreatSPN 3 Times tool wins 456 232
Irma.full > GreatSPN 13   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < GreatSPN 6 Times tool wins 446 242
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 125 394 120


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 Irma.full computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.full versus Irma.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.full Irma.struct Both tools   Irma.full Irma.struct
All computed OK 0 4 385   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Irma.struct 168 Times tool wins 263 304
Irma.full > Irma.struct 4   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Irma.struct 6 Times tool wins 271 296
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 0 241


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 Irma.full computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where Irma.full 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.

Irma.full wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart