fond
Model Checking Contest 2020
10th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2020
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Surprise» models, CTLFireability)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2020

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability 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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for ITS-Tools and 211 for GreatSPN, so there are 211 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 19 22 62   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 1 Times tool wins 74 73
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 12   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 31 Times tool wins 42 105
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 17 64


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 ITS-LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for ITS-Tools and 211 for ITS-LoLa, so there are 211 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-LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools ITS-LoLa Both tools   ITS-Tools ITS-LoLa
All computed OK 1 77 49   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = ITS-LoLa 1 Times tool wins 67 135
ITS-Tools > ITS-LoLa 39   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < ITS-LoLa 35 Times tool wins 100 102
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 77 1 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 ITS-LoLa, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than ITS-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, ITS-LoLa wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for ITS-Tools and 211 for Tapaal, so there are 211 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 19 83 40   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 1 Times tool wins 104 104
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 29   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 36 Times tool wins 80 128
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 83 19 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 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 smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for ITS-Tools and 211 for smart, so there are 211 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 smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools smart Both tools   ITS-Tools smart
All computed OK 95 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = smart 1 Times tool wins 124 1
ITS-Tools > smart 22   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < smart 0 Times tool wins 119 6
Do not compete 0 20 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 76 84


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 smart, denote cases where ITS-Tools 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.

ITS-Tools wins when points are below the diagonal, smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus 2019-Gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 422 runs (211 for ITS-Tools and 211 for 2019-Gold, so there are 211 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 2019-Gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools 2019-Gold Both tools   ITS-Tools 2019-Gold
All computed OK 19 84 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2019-Gold 0 Times tool wins 82 127
ITS-Tools > 2019-Gold 26   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2019-Gold 38 Times tool wins 77 132
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 84 19 2


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 2019-Gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than 2019-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, 2019-Gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart