fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
M4M.full compared to other tools («Known» models, CTLCardinality)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.full do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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 M4M.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).

M4M.full versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full LTSMin Both tools   M4M.full LTSMin
All computed OK 116 215 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LTSMin 197 Times tool wins 428 315
M4M.full > LTSMin 73   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LTSMin 91 Times tool wins 415 328
Do not compete 0 181 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 276 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 M4M.full computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where M4M.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.

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full Tapaal Both tools   M4M.full Tapaal
All computed OK 4 271 62   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Tapaal 19 Times tool wins 308 491
M4M.full > Tapaal 19   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Tapaal 424 Times tool wins 330 469
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 267 4 9


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus LoLA

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full LoLA Both tools   M4M.full LoLA
All computed OK 25 257 55   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LoLA 25 Times tool wins 211 574
M4M.full > LoLA 33   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LoLA 390 Times tool wins 401 384
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 5 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 254 21 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 M4M.full computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where M4M.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.

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus M4M.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full M4M.struct Both tools   M4M.full M4M.struct
All computed OK 111 5 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = M4M.struct 309 Times tool wins 318 215
M4M.full > M4M.struct 5   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < M4M.struct 38 Times tool wins 315 218
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 1 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 110 273


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full ITS-Tools Both tools   M4M.full ITS-Tools
All computed OK 317 175 62   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools 1 Times tool wins 507 196
M4M.full > ITS-Tools 17   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools 131 Times tool wins 380 323
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 171 317 105


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 M4M.full computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where M4M.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.

M4M.full wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus ITS-Tools.L

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full ITS-Tools.L Both tools   M4M.full ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 326 170 61   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools.L 1 Times tool wins 507 191
M4M.full > ITS-Tools.L 15   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools.L 125 Times tool wins 381 317
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 166 326 110


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 M4M.full computed more values than ITS-Tools.L, denote cases where M4M.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.

M4M.full wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.L wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full GreatSPN Both tools   M4M.full GreatSPN
All computed OK 375 140 64   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 395 273
M4M.full > GreatSPN 3   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < GreatSPN 85 Times tool wins 396 272
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 136 375 140


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus Irma.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full Irma.full Both tools   M4M.full Irma.full
All computed OK 12 34 63   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.full 344 Times tool wins 259 303
M4M.full > Irma.full 13   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.full 96 Times tool wins 241 321
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 12 246


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus Irma.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full Irma.struct Both tools   M4M.full Irma.struct
All computed OK 12 34 63   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.struct 343 Times tool wins 241 321
M4M.full > Irma.struct 12   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.struct 98 Times tool wins 231 331
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 4 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 12 246


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

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

memory chart time chart