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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools.M do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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.M' 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.M versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools.M and 1018 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M ITS-Tools Both tools   ITS-Tools.M ITS-Tools
All computed OK 24 78 421   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = ITS-Tools 215 Times tool wins 446 436
ITS-Tools.M > ITS-Tools 74   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < ITS-Tools 66 Times tool wins 209 673
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 77 24 136


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools.M and 1018 for LoLA, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools.M LoLA
All computed OK 18 180 409   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = LoLA 4 Times tool wins 470 513
ITS-Tools.M > LoLA 60   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < LoLA 309 Times tool wins 181 802
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 181 17 32


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools.M and 1018 for Tapaal, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools.M Tapaal
All computed OK 0 202 445   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = Tapaal 6 Times tool wins 53 953
ITS-Tools.M > Tapaal 21   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < Tapaal 328 Times tool wins 51 955
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 201 0 12


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools.M and 1018 for enPAC, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to enPAC are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M enPAC Both tools   ITS-Tools.M enPAC
All computed OK 800 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 800 0
ITS-Tools.M > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 800 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 801 213


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools.M and 1018 for GreatSPN, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools.M GreatSPN
All computed OK 485 16 295   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 585 231
ITS-Tools.M > GreatSPN 12   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < GreatSPN 8 Times tool wins 587 229
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 486 197


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

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools.M versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools.M and 1018 for 2018-Gold, so there are 1018 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools.M to 2018-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools.M 2018-Gold Both tools   ITS-Tools.M 2018-Gold
All computed OK 0 203 445   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = 2018-Gold 6 Times tool wins 53 954
ITS-Tools.M > 2018-Gold 21   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < 2018-Gold 328 Times tool wins 46 961
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 202 0 11


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

memory chart time chart