fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Known» models, LTLFireability)
Last Updated
Apr 15, 2019

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability 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 ITS-Tools' 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 versus ITS-Tools.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools and 969 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to ITS-Tools.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools ITS-Tools.M Both tools   ITS-Tools ITS-Tools.M
All computed OK 101 30 474   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-Tools.M 113 Times tool wins 414 397
ITS-Tools > ITS-Tools.M 39   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-Tools.M 54 Times tool wins 434 377
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 101 152


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 computed more values than ITS-Tools.M, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than ITS-Tools.M, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.M wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools and 969 for LoLA, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLA
All computed OK 0 151 477   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 30 Times tool wins 507 427
ITS-Tools > LoLA 59   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 217 Times tool wins 167 767
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 152 0 34


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 computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools and 969 for enPAC, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools enPAC Both tools   ITS-Tools enPAC
All computed OK 731 1 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 762 22
ITS-Tools > enPAC 9   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < enPAC 2 Times tool wins 761 23
Do not compete 0 180 0
Error detected 0 37 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 67 580 119


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 computed more values than enPAC, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than enPAC, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, enPAC wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools and 969 for 2018-Gold, so there are 969 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools 2018-Gold Both tools   ITS-Tools 2018-Gold
All computed OK 0 151 445   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2018-Gold 28 Times tool wins 110 824
ITS-Tools > 2018-Gold 94   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2018-Gold 216 Times tool wins 104 830
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 151 0 35


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 computed more values than 2018-Gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than 2018-Gold, 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart