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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 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 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 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 364 73 345   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 726 136
LTSMin > ITS-Tools 2   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools 78 Times tool wins 580 282
Do not compete 179 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 470 0


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.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools.M

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 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 326 76 363   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = ITS-Tools.M 0 Times tool wins 746 118
LTSMin > ITS-Tools.M 3   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < ITS-Tools.M 96 Times tool wins 605 259
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 429 0


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.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin LoLA Both tools   LTSMin LoLA
All computed OK 27 147 339   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = LoLA 31 Times tool wins 653 283
LTSMin > LoLA 45   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < LoLA 347 Times tool wins 319 617
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 60 0


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 LoLA, denote cases where LTSMin 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.

LTSMin wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 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 15 177 371   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 311 655
LTSMin > Tapaal 14   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < Tapaal 389 Times tool wins 368 598
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 18 0


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.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 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 789 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 789 0
LTSMin > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 789 0
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 969 0


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.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 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 310 73 355   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 574 288
LTSMin > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < GreatSPN 124 Times tool wins 501 361
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 417 0


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.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin and 969 for smart, 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 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 446 0 287   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = smart 0 Times tool wins 719 70
LTSMin > smart 3   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < smart 53 Times tool wins 661 128
Do not compete 0 0 180
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 446 0


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.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1938 runs (969 for LTSMin 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 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 44 143 321   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin = 2018-Gold 2 Times tool wins 260 672
LTSMin > 2018-Gold 60   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin < 2018-Gold 362 Times tool wins 168 764
Do not compete 180 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 81 0


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.

memory chart time chart