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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.struct 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.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 111 149 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LTSMin 33 Times tool wins 215 180
M4M.struct > LTSMin 95   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LTSMin 7 Times tool wins 184 211
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 297 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.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 152 107 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Tapaal 29 Times tool wins 170 183
M4M.struct > Tapaal 60   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Tapaal 5 Times tool wins 180 173
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 107 152 455


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 246 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 246 0
M4M.struct > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 246 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 246 562


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


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.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 24 237 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools 67 Times tool wins 242 241
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools 148   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools 7 Times tool wins 58 425
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 237 24 325


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 38 232 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools.L 55 Times tool wins 243 235
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools.L 146   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools.L 7 Times tool wins 81 397
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 232 38 330


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 8 289 169   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 24 511
M4M.struct > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < GreatSPN 67 Times tool wins 35 500
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 289 8 273


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 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 smart

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct smart Both tools   M4M.struct smart
All computed OK 116 148 92   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = smart 0 Times tool wins 127 267
M4M.struct > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < smart 38 Times tool wins 157 237
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 296 84 266


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 smart, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

M4M.struct versus TINA.tedd

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

Statistics on the executions
  M4M.struct TINA.tedd Both tools   M4M.struct TINA.tedd
All computed OK 11 295 164   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = TINA.tedd 0 Times tool wins 227 314
M4M.struct > TINA.tedd 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < TINA.tedd 71 Times tool wins 80 461
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 295 11 267


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 TINA.tedd, denote cases where M4M.struct 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.struct wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd 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 11 58 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.full 19 Times tool wins 95 209
M4M.struct > Irma.full 57   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.full 56 Times tool wins 90 214
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 58 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.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 11 57 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.struct 19 Times tool wins 134 169
M4M.struct > Irma.struct 57   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.struct 56 Times tool wins 96 207
Do not compete 0 8 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 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.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