fond
Model Checking Contest 2018
8th edition, Bratislava, Slovakia, June 26, 2018
ITS-Tools.L compared to other tools («Surprise» models, CTLFireability)
Last Updated
June 26, 2018

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools.L do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 ITS-Tools.L' 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).

ITS-Tools.L versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for LTSMin, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools.L LTSMin
All computed OK 0 89 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LTSMin 1 Times tool wins 0 139
ITS-Tools.L > LTSMin 20   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LTSMin 7 Times tool wins 35 104
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for Tapaal, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools.L Tapaal
All computed OK 0 89 13   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 33 106
ITS-Tools.L > Tapaal 23   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Tapaal 14 Times tool wins 37 102
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for LoLA, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools.L LoLA
All computed OK 3 87 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 12 125
ITS-Tools.L > LoLA 26   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < LoLA 12 Times tool wins 38 99
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 87 3 2


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

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus M4M.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for M4M.full, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to M4M.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L M4M.full Both tools   ITS-Tools.L M4M.full
All computed OK 50 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 50 0
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.full 0 Times tool wins 50 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 50 89


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

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus M4M.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for M4M.struct, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to M4M.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L M4M.struct Both tools   ITS-Tools.L M4M.struct
All computed OK 50 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 50 0
ITS-Tools.L > M4M.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < M4M.struct 0 Times tool wins 50 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 50 89


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

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for ITS-Tools, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L ITS-Tools Both tools   ITS-Tools.L ITS-Tools
All computed OK 3 7 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = ITS-Tools 4 Times tool wins 27 30
ITS-Tools.L > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < ITS-Tools 8 Times tool wins 18 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 3 82


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

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for GreatSPN, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools.L GreatSPN
All computed OK 21 1 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 21 30
ITS-Tools.L > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 34 17
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 21 88


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

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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus Irma.full

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for Irma.full, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to Irma.full are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L Irma.full Both tools   ITS-Tools.L Irma.full
All computed OK 50 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 50 0
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.full 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.full 0 Times tool wins 50 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 50 89


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 ITS-Tools.L computed more values than Irma.full, denote cases where ITS-Tools.L 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.

ITS-Tools.L wins when points are below the diagonal, Irma.full wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.L versus Irma.struct

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools.L and 139 for Irma.struct, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.L to Irma.struct are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.L Irma.struct Both tools   ITS-Tools.L Irma.struct
All computed OK 50 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.L = Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 50 0
ITS-Tools.L > Irma.struct 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.L < Irma.struct 0 Times tool wins 50 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 50 89


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

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

memory chart time chart