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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.struct do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 234 191 122   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LTSMin 1 Times tool wins 346 217
M4M.struct > LTSMin 4   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LTSMin 11 Times tool wins 277 286
Do not compete 0 181 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 268 130 168


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 35 360 253   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 53 679
M4M.struct > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Tapaal 84 Times tool wins 47 685
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 360 35 76


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 53 328 252   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 57 643
M4M.struct > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LoLA 67 Times tool wins 76 624
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 328 53 108


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 18 112 230   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = M4M.full 111 Times tool wins 178 306
M4M.struct > M4M.full 13   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 208 276
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 112 18 324


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 100 337 199   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 350 359
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools 73 Times tool wins 155 554
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 337 100 99


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 78 343 216   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools.L 0 Times tool wins 350 365
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools.L 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools.L 78 Times tool wins 149 566
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 343 78 93


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 196 216 140   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 223 365
M4M.struct > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < GreatSPN 36 Times tool wins 223 365
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 216 196 220


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 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 1 171 244   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.full 103 Times tool wins 154 389
M4M.struct > Irma.full 12   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.full 12 Times tool wins 184 359
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 171 1 265


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.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 1 172 244   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.struct 103 Times tool wins 161 383
M4M.struct > Irma.struct 12   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.struct 12 Times tool wins 190 354
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 172 1 264


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.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