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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Tapaal Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal
All computed OK 131 48 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Tapaal 153 Times tool wins 142 190
LTSMin > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 185 147
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 271 336


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 LTSMin computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus LoLA

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin LoLA Both tools   LTSMin LoLA
All computed OK 284 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 284 0
LTSMin > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 284 0
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 465 343


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 LTSMin computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus M4M.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin M4M.full Both tools   LTSMin M4M.full
All computed OK 150 110 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = M4M.full 16 Times tool wins 182 212
LTSMin > M4M.full 7   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < M4M.full 111 Times tool wins 209 185
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 78 299 265


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

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus M4M.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin M4M.struct Both tools   LTSMin M4M.struct
All computed OK 149 111 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = M4M.struct 33 Times tool wins 180 215
LTSMin > M4M.struct 7   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < M4M.struct 95 Times tool wins 211 184
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 78 297 265


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 LTSMin computed more values than M4M.struct, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
All computed OK 15 190 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools 269 Times tool wins 284 190
LTSMin > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 103 371
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 109 115 234


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 LTSMin computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools.L

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin ITS-Tools.L Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 24 180 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools.L 260 Times tool wins 284 180
LTSMin > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 115 349
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 131 237


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 LTSMin computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin GreatSPN Both tools   LTSMin GreatSPN
All computed OK 4 247 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 6 525
LTSMin > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < GreatSPN 280 Times tool wins 18 513
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 164 102 179


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 LTSMin computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus smart

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin smart Both tools   LTSMin smart
All computed OK 49 43 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = smart 0 Times tool wins 76 251
LTSMin > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < smart 235 Times tool wins 142 185
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 42 49 301


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 LTSMin computed more values than smart, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus TINA.tedd

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin TINA.tedd Both tools   LTSMin TINA.tedd
All computed OK 4 250 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 104 430
LTSMin > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < TINA.tedd 280 Times tool wins 86 448
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 163 98 180


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 LTSMin computed more values than TINA.tedd, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Irma.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Irma.full Both tools   LTSMin Irma.full
All computed OK 137 146 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Irma.full 13 Times tool wins 172 258
LTSMin > Irma.full 23   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Irma.full 111 Times tool wins 206 224
Do not compete 172 0 8
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 104 268 239


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

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

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Irma.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin Irma.struct Both tools   LTSMin Irma.struct
All computed OK 137 145 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Irma.struct 13 Times tool wins 172 257
LTSMin > Irma.struct 23   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Irma.struct 111 Times tool wins 202 227
Do not compete 172 0 8
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 103 268 240


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

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

memory chart time chart