fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
ITS-Tools.M compared to other tools («Known» 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 «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.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 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for ITS-Tools, 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.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 22 76 412   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = ITS-Tools 198 Times tool wins 423 426
ITS-Tools.M > ITS-Tools 71   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < ITS-Tools 66 Times tool wins 201 648
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 75 22 120


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 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M 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.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 15 172 398   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = LoLA 4 Times tool wins 457 487
ITS-Tools.M > LoLA 60   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < LoLA 292 Times tool wins 178 766
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 173 14 22


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 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for Tapaal, 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.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 0 192 434   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = Tapaal 6 Times tool wins 51 914
ITS-Tools.M > Tapaal 20   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < Tapaal 309 Times tool wins 51 914
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 191 0 4


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 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M 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.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 769 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 769 0
ITS-Tools.M > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 769 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 770 195


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 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M and 969 for GreatSPN, 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.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 458 16 291   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 557 228
ITS-Tools.M > GreatSPN 12   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < GreatSPN 8 Times tool wins 558 227
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 459 179


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 1938 runs (969 for ITS-Tools.M 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.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 0 193 434   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = 2018-Gold 6 Times tool wins 52 914
ITS-Tools.M > 2018-Gold 20   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < 2018-Gold 309 Times tool wins 46 920
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 192 0 3


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