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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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' 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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools and 49 for ITS-Tools.M, 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 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 3 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-Tools.M 14 Times tool wins 9 18
ITS-Tools > ITS-Tools.M 1   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-Tools.M 2 Times tool wins 6 21
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 3 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 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 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools 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 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 2 13 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 11 29
ITS-Tools > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 16 Times tool wins 2 38
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 2 9


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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools 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 to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal
All computed OK 1 14 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 3 38
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 17 Times tool wins 2 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 1 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 computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus enPAC

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools 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 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 27 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = enPAC 0 Times tool wins 27 0
ITS-Tools > enPAC 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < enPAC 0 Times tool wins 27 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 27 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 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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools 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 to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools GreatSPN
All computed OK 21 0 5   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 24 3
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 23 4
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 21 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 computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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 wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus 2018-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 98 runs (49 for ITS-Tools 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 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 1 14 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2018-Gold 0 Times tool wins 5 36
ITS-Tools > 2018-Gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2018-Gold 17 Times tool wins 2 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 1 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 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