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

Introduction

This page presents how Irma.struct 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 Irma.struct' 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.struct versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct LTSMin Both tools   Irma.struct LTSMin
All computed OK 122 183 144   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = LTSMin 28 Times tool wins 512 230
Irma.struct > LTSMin 210   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < LTSMin 55 Times tool wins 445 297
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 8 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 249 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.struct computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct Tapaal Both tools   Irma.struct Tapaal
All computed OK 13 232 319   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = Tapaal 8 Times tool wins 134 657
Irma.struct > Tapaal 39   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < Tapaal 180 Times tool wins 293 498
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 232 13 17


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.struct computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus LoLA

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct LoLA Both tools   Irma.struct LoLA
All computed OK 25 229 279   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = LoLA 45 Times tool wins 138 650
Irma.struct > LoLA 76   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < LoLA 134 Times tool wins 344 444
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 229 25 20


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.struct computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus M4M.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct M4M.full Both tools   Irma.struct M4M.full
All computed OK 24 4 306   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = M4M.full 120 Times tool wins 326 237
Irma.struct > M4M.full 55   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < M4M.full 54 Times tool wins 350 213
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 24 245


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.struct computed more values than M4M.full, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, M4M.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus M4M.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct M4M.struct Both tools   Irma.struct M4M.struct
All computed OK 89 4 302   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = M4M.struct 55 Times tool wins 384 179
Irma.struct > M4M.struct 44   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < M4M.struct 69 Times tool wins 382 181
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 89 245


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

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct ITS-Tools Both tools   Irma.struct ITS-Tools
All computed OK 111 219 226   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = ITS-Tools 11 Times tool wins 537 241
Irma.struct > ITS-Tools 111   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < ITS-Tools 100 Times tool wins 370 408
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 219 111 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 Irma.struct computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus ITS-Tools.L

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct ITS-Tools.L Both tools   Irma.struct ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 113 206 212   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = ITS-Tools.L 9 Times tool wins 537 228
Irma.struct > ITS-Tools.L 115   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < ITS-Tools.L 110 Times tool wins 364 401
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 206 113 43


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

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct GreatSPN Both tools   Irma.struct GreatSPN
All computed OK 391 135 133   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 445 249
Irma.struct > GreatSPN 8   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < GreatSPN 23 Times tool wins 435 259
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 135 391 114


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.struct computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Irma.struct versus Irma.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct Irma.full Both tools   Irma.struct Irma.full
All computed OK 2 4 343   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = Irma.full 201 Times tool wins 284 279
Irma.struct > Irma.full 4   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < Irma.full 9 Times tool wins 286 277
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 2 245


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

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

memory chart time chart