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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.full 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 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 110 150 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LTSMin 16 Times tool wins 212 182
M4M.full > LTSMin 111   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LTSMin 7 Times tool wins 185 209
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 299 78 265


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 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 151 108 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Tapaal 18 Times tool wins 168 184
M4M.full > Tapaal 70   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Tapaal 5 Times tool wins 179 173
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 151 456


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 244 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 244 0
M4M.full > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 244 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 244 564


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 8 145   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = M4M.struct 30 Times tool wins 174 78
M4M.full > M4M.struct 40   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < M4M.struct 23 Times tool wins 123 129
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 6 556


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 27 242 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools 46 Times tool wins 240 246
M4M.full > ITS-Tools 164   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools 7 Times tool wins 57 429
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 242 27 322


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 34 230 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = ITS-Tools.L 38 Times tool wins 240 234
M4M.full > ITS-Tools.L 165   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < ITS-Tools.L 7 Times tool wins 76 398
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 230 34 334


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 10 293 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 23 514
M4M.full > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < GreatSPN 52 Times tool wins 32 505
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 293 10 271


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 smart

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full smart Both tools   M4M.full smart
All computed OK 117 151 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = smart 0 Times tool wins 127 268
M4M.full > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < smart 24 Times tool wins 162 233
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 300 86 264


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 smart, denote cases where M4M.full 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.

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.full versus TINA.tedd

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.full TINA.tedd Both tools   M4M.full TINA.tedd
All computed OK 10 296 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 222 318
M4M.full > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < TINA.tedd 53 Times tool wins 75 465
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 296 10 268


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 TINA.tedd, denote cases where M4M.full 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.

M4M.full wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd 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 11 60 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.full 8 Times tool wins 129 175
M4M.full > Irma.full 64   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.full 32 Times tool wins 97 207
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 60 3 504


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 11 59 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.full = Irma.struct 8 Times tool wins 158 145
M4M.full > Irma.struct 64   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.full < Irma.struct 32 Times tool wins 105 198
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 59 3 505


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