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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.struct 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.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).

M4M.struct versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct LTSMin Both tools   M4M.struct LTSMin
All computed OK 99 304 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LTSMin 125 Times tool wins 363 363
M4M.struct > LTSMin 60   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LTSMin 73 Times tool wins 307 419
Do not compete 0 181 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 383 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.struct computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where M4M.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.

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct Tapaal Both tools   M4M.struct Tapaal
All computed OK 3 376 80   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Tapaal 15 Times tool wins 224 574
M4M.struct > Tapaal 22   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Tapaal 302 Times tool wins 228 570
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 373 3 10


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus LoLA

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct LoLA Both tools   M4M.struct LoLA
All computed OK 22 360 67   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LoLA 19 Times tool wins 159 623
M4M.struct > LoLA 38   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LoLA 276 Times tool wins 297 485
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 5 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 358 18 25


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus M4M.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct M4M.full Both tools   M4M.struct M4M.full
All computed OK 5 111 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = M4M.full 309 Times tool wins 214 319
M4M.struct > M4M.full 38   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < M4M.full 5 Times tool wins 218 315
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 2 2  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 110 3 273


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct ITS-Tools Both tools   M4M.struct ITS-Tools
All computed OK 206 170 86   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools 15 Times tool wins 404 188
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools 14   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools 101 Times tool wins 251 341
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 168 207 215


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus ITS-Tools.L

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct ITS-Tools.L Both tools   M4M.struct ITS-Tools.L
All computed OK 215 165 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools.L 15 Times tool wins 404 183
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools.L 12   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools.L 95 Times tool wins 250 337
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 163 216 220


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct GreatSPN Both tools   M4M.struct GreatSPN
All computed OK 273 144 87   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 287 279
M4M.struct > GreatSPN 2   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < GreatSPN 59 Times tool wins 291 275
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 141 273 242


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus Irma.full

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct Irma.full Both tools   M4M.struct Irma.full
All computed OK 8 136 81   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.full 240 Times tool wins 213 345
M4M.struct > Irma.full 24   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.full 69 Times tool wins 179 379
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 133 8 250


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

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

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus Irma.struct

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct Irma.struct Both tools   M4M.struct Irma.struct
All computed OK 8 136 82   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.struct 239 Times tool wins 192 366
M4M.struct > Irma.struct 24   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.struct 69 Times tool wins 178 380
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 3 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 133 8 250


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.struct computed more values than Irma.struct, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.struct wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart