Introduction
This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 LTSMin' 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).
LTSMin versus ITS-Tools
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for ITS-Tools, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | ITS-Tools | Both tools | LTSMin | ITS-Tools | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 4 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = ITS-Tools | — | — | 7 | Times tool wins | 4 | 7 |
| LTSMin > ITS-Tools | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < ITS-Tools | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 6 | 5 |
| Do not compete | 13 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 4 | 13 | 25 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than ITS-Tools,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus ITS-Tools.M
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for ITS-Tools.M, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to ITS-Tools.M are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | ITS-Tools.M | Both tools | LTSMin | ITS-Tools.M | ||
| All computed OK | 1 | 2 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = ITS-Tools.M | — | — | 6 | Times tool wins | 5 | 4 |
| LTSMin > ITS-Tools.M | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < ITS-Tools.M | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 5 | 4 |
| Do not compete | 13 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 2 | 14 | 27 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than ITS-Tools.M,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools.M wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus Tapaal
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for Tapaal, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | Tapaal | Both tools | LTSMin | Tapaal | ||
| All computed OK | 5 | 0 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = Tapaal | — | — | 2 | Times tool wins | 6 | 1 |
| LTSMin > Tapaal | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < Tapaal | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 7 | 0 |
| Do not compete | 13 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 0 | 18 | 29 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than Tapaal,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus enPAC
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for enPAC, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | enPAC | Both tools | LTSMin | enPAC | ||
| All computed OK | 6 | 0 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = enPAC | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 7 | 0 |
| LTSMin > enPAC | — | — | 1 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < enPAC | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 7 | 0 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 13 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 0 | 6 | 29 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than enPAC,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, enPAC wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus GreatSPN
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for GreatSPN, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | GreatSPN | Both tools | LTSMin | GreatSPN | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 2 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = GreatSPN | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 0 | 9 |
| LTSMin > GreatSPN | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < GreatSPN | — | — | 7 | Times tool wins | 3 | 6 |
| Do not compete | 13 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 2 | 13 | 27 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than GreatSPN,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus smart
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for smart, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | smart | Both tools | LTSMin | smart | ||
| All computed OK | 1 | 1 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = smart | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 5 | 3 |
| LTSMin > smart | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < smart | — | — | 6 | Times tool wins | 5 | 3 |
| Do not compete | 0 | 0 | 13 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 1 | 1 | 28 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than smart,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus TINA.tedd
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for TINA.tedd, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | TINA.tedd | Both tools | LTSMin | TINA.tedd | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 2 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = TINA.tedd | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 6 | 3 |
| LTSMin > TINA.tedd | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < TINA.tedd | — | — | 7 | Times tool wins | 5 | 4 |
| Do not compete | 13 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 2 | 13 | 27 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than TINA.tedd,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, TINA.tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.
LTSMin versus 2018-Gold
Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for LTSMin and 49 for 2018-Gold, so there are 49 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).
| Statistics on the executions | ||||||
| LTSMin | 2018-Gold | Both tools | LTSMin | 2018-Gold | ||
| All computed OK | 0 | 3 | 0 | Smallest Memory Footprint | ||
| LTSMin = 2018-Gold | — | — | 0 | Times tool wins | 0 | 10 |
| LTSMin > 2018-Gold | — | — | 0 | Shortest Execution Time | ||
| LTSMin < 2018-Gold | — | — | 7 | Times tool wins | 3 | 7 |
| Do not compete | 13 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Error detected | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| Cannot Compute + Time-out | 3 | 13 | 26 | |||
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 LTSMin
computed more values than 2018-Gold,
denote cases where LTSMin
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.
LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, 2018-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.
