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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.full do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 68 261 131   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LTSMin 7 Times tool wins 393 303
M4M.full > LTSMin 193   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LTSMin 36 Times tool wins 308 388
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 373 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 1 371 320   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Tapaal 5 Times tool wins 57 749
M4M.full > Tapaal 16   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Tapaal 93 Times tool wins 66 740
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 371 1 2


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 4 337 294   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LoLA 20 Times tool wins 39 733
M4M.full > LoLA 43   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LoLA 74 Times tool wins 191 581
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 337 3 36


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 6 97 332   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = M4M.struct 85 Times tool wins 250 282
M4M.full > M4M.struct 7   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < M4M.struct 5 Times tool wins 220 312
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 97 6 276


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 63 329 203   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools 24 Times tool wins 404 360
M4M.full > ITS-Tools 100   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools 45 Times tool wins 216 548
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 329 63 44


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 59 328 197   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools.L 25 Times tool wins 406 357
M4M.full > ITS-Tools.L 110   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools.L 44 Times tool wins 228 535
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 328 59 45


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 281 140 140   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 327 248
M4M.full > GreatSPN 8   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < GreatSPN 6 Times tool wins 317 258
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 140 281 233


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 3 131 324   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.full 36 Times tool wins 207 359
M4M.full > Irma.full 15   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.full 57 Times tool wins 165 401
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 131 3 242


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 0 132 324   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.struct 36 Times tool wins 202 365
M4M.full > Irma.struct 18   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.struct 57 Times tool wins 157 410
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 132 0 241


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