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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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' 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 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools and 1018 for ITS-Tools.M, 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 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 121 22 419   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-Tools.M 202 Times tool wins 433 427
ITS-Tools > ITS-Tools.M 36   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-Tools.M 60 Times tool wins 483 377
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 121 152


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 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools 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 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 3 137 364   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 62 Times tool wins 533 442
ITS-Tools > LoLA 130   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 279 Times tool wins 308 667
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 136 2 43


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 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools 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 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 811 1 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 827 12
ITS-Tools > enPAC 3   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 826 13
Do not compete 0 193 0
Error detected 1 62 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 68 624 111


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 2036 runs (1018 for ITS-Tools 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 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 9 138 326   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2018-Gold 55 Times tool wins 229 747
ITS-Tools > 2018-Gold 153   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2018-Gold 295 Times tool wins 218 758
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 137 6 42


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