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

Introduction

This page presents how M4M.struct do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 40 407 136   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LTSMin 11 Times tool wins 236 432
M4M.struct > LTSMin 63   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LTSMin 11 Times tool wins 168 500
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 546 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 29 343 174   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 81 523
M4M.struct > Tapaal 42   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Tapaal 16 Times tool wins 138 466
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 344 29 202


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 10 490 185   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = LoLA 2 Times tool wins 41 710
M4M.struct > LoLA 44   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < LoLA 20 Times tool wins 85 666
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 489 10 57


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 12 167 205   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = M4M.full 1 Times tool wins 49 379
M4M.struct > M4M.full 26   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < M4M.full 17 Times tool wins 122 306
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 167 12 379


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 30 224 215   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools 2 Times tool wins 261 224
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools 14 Times tool wins 66 419
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 223 30 323


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 42 208 207   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = ITS-Tools.L 2 Times tool wins 261 208
M4M.struct > ITS-Tools.L 1   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < ITS-Tools.L 9 Times tool wins 82 387
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 207 42 339


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 22 263 220   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = GreatSPN 2 Times tool wins 33 491
M4M.struct > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < GreatSPN 17 Times tool wins 40 484
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 262 22 284


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 127 146 130   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = smart 1 Times tool wins 134 273
M4M.struct > smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < smart 3 Times tool wins 158 249
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 285 87 261


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 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 0 291 223   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.full 5 Times tool wins 61 491
M4M.struct > Irma.full 17   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.full 16 Times tool wins 92 460
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 290 0 256


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 1 292 221   Smallest Memory Footprint
M4M.struct = Irma.struct 5 Times tool wins 81 472
M4M.struct > Irma.struct 18   Shortest Execution Time
M4M.struct < Irma.struct 16 Times tool wins 91 462
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 291 1 255


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