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

Introduction

This page presents how Irma.struct do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 116 192 159   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = LTSMin 168 Times tool wins 516 228
Irma.struct > LTSMin 102   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < LTSMin 7 Times tool wins 469 275
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 256 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 160 183 195   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = Tapaal 12 Times tool wins 292 443
Irma.struct > Tapaal 78   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < Tapaal 107 Times tool wins 403 332
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 184 159 72


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 40 229 220   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = LoLA 4 Times tool wins 118 663
Irma.struct > LoLA 70   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < LoLA 218 Times tool wins 255 526
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 229 40 27


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 146 10 218   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = M4M.full 129 Times tool wins 281 281
Irma.struct > M4M.full 50   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < M4M.full 9 Times tool wins 370 192
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 145 246


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 292 1 221   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = M4M.struct 5 Times tool wins 472 81
Irma.struct > M4M.struct 16   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < M4M.struct 18 Times tool wins 462 91
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 291 255


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 298 201 233   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 544 209
Irma.struct > ITS-Tools 1   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < ITS-Tools 19 Times tool wins 364 389
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 201 298 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.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 304 179 218   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = ITS-Tools.L 1 Times tool wins 544 187
Irma.struct > ITS-Tools.L 3   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < ITS-Tools.L 26 Times tool wins 369 362
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 179 304 77


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 252 202 271   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 313 441
Irma.struct > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < GreatSPN 28 Times tool wins 324 430
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 202 252 54


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 smart

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

Statistics on the executions
  Irma.struct smart Both tools   Irma.struct smart
All computed OK 407 135 137   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = smart 1 Times tool wins 423 264
Irma.struct > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < smart 7 Times tool wins 459 228
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 199 291 57


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 smart, denote cases where Irma.struct 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.

Irma.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, smart 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 1 1 297   Smallest Memory Footprint
Irma.struct = Irma.full 250 Times tool wins 146 407
Irma.struct > Irma.full 2   Shortest Execution Time
Irma.struct < Irma.full 2 Times tool wins 270 283
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 1 255


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