fond
Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
ITS-Tools compared to other tools (��Surprise�� models, CTLFireability)
Last Updated
Jun 28, 2021

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 364 runs (182 for ITS-Tools and 182 for GreatSPN, so there are 182 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 69 18 46   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 3 Times tool wins 94 68
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 13   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 13 Times tool wins 83 79
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 20 67 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 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 LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for ITS-Tools and 182 for LoLA, so there are 182 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 34 16 27   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 3 Times tool wins 67 93
ITS-Tools > LoLA 40   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 40 Times tool wins 51 109
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 34 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 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 364 runs (182 for ITS-Tools and 182 for Tapaal, so there are 182 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 21 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 1 Times tool wins 79 86
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 35   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 84 Times tool wins 60 105
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 0 17


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 2020-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for ITS-Tools and 182 for 2020-gold, so there are 182 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 2020-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools 2020-gold Both tools   ITS-Tools 2020-gold
All computed OK 1 21 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2020-gold 1 Times tool wins 88 77
ITS-Tools > 2020-gold 33   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2020-gold 84 Times tool wins 60 105
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 0 17


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 2020-gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than 2020-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, 2020-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus BVT-2021

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 364 runs (182 for ITS-Tools and 182 for BVT-2021, so there are 182 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 BVT-2021 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, ITS-Tools is compared to BVT-2021. It is a good way to check how ITS-Tools compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When ITS-Tools is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools BVT-2021 Both tools   ITS-Tools BVT-2021
All computed OK 1 35 55   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2021 1 Times tool wins 1 178
ITS-Tools > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2021 87 Times tool wins 1 178
Do not compete 0 2 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 0 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 ITS-Tools computed more values than BVT-2021, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than BVT-2021, 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, BVT-2021 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart