fond
Model Checking Contest 2019
9th edition, Prague, Czech Republic, April 7, 2019 (TOOLympics)
ITS-Tools.M compared to other tools («Surprise» 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 «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 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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools.M 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 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 2 2 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = ITS-Tools 17 Times tool wins 23 10
ITS-Tools.M > ITS-Tools 3   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 8 25
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 2 16


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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools.M and 49 for LoLA, 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 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 3 8 11   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 13 26
ITS-Tools.M > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < LoLA 17 Times tool wins 3 36
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 3 10


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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools.M 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 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 10 11   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 2 39
ITS-Tools.M > Tapaal 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < Tapaal 19 Times tool wins 0 41
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 0 8


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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools.M 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 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 31 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 31 0
ITS-Tools.M > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 31 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 31 18


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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools.M 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 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 27 0 4   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 28 3
ITS-Tools.M > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 29 2
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 27 18


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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools.M 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 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 10 11   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools.M = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 1 40
ITS-Tools.M > 2018-Gold 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools.M < 2018-Gold 19 Times tool wins 0 41
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 0 8


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