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

Introduction

This page presents how Irma.full do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 331 118 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LTSMin 3 Times tool wins 521 139
Irma.full > LTSMin 24   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LTSMin 4 Times tool wins 445 215
Do not compete 0 181 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 177 209 89


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 56 211 384   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 100 653
Irma.full > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Tapaal 102 Times tool wins 92 661
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 211 56 55


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 95 200 359   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 109 633
Irma.full > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < LoLA 88 Times tool wins 119 623
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 200 95 66


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 78 2 315   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.full 132 Times tool wins 325 219
Irma.full > M4M.full 16   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.full 1 Times tool wins 349 195
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 78 264


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 171 1 244   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = M4M.struct 103 Times tool wins 388 155
Irma.full > M4M.struct 12   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < M4M.struct 12 Times tool wins 359 184
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 171 265


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 161 228 299   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 526 244
Irma.full > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools 82 Times tool wins 227 543
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 228 161 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 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 139 234 314   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 525 251
Irma.full > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < ITS-Tools.L 89 Times tool wins 219 557
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 234 139 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 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 334 184 172   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 390 336
Irma.full > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < GreatSPN 36 Times tool wins 393 333
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 184 334 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 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 1 401   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.full = Irma.struct 141 Times tool wins 277 266
Irma.full > Irma.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.full < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 281 262
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 0 265


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