fond
Model Checking Contest 2023
13th edition, Paris, France, April 26, 2023 (at TOOLympics II)
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Surprise» models, ReachabilityDeadlock)
Last Updated
May 14, 2023

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for GreatSPN, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 24 2 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 33 28
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 34 27
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 24 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 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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for Tapaal, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 16 1 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 20 40
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 24 36
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 13 1


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 LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for LoLa+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LoLa+red Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLa+red
All computed OK 4 0 55   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 27 32
ITS-Tools > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 27 32
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 4 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 LoLa+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than LoLa+red, 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+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LTSMin+red Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin+red
All computed OK 7 0 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 32 27
ITS-Tools > LTSMin+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 36 23
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 7 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 LTSMin+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than LTSMin+red, 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, LTSMin+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Marcie+red Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie+red
All computed OK 0 2 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 24 37
ITS-Tools > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 17 44
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 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 Marcie+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Marcie+red, 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, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for Smart+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Smart+red Both tools   ITS-Tools Smart+red
All computed OK 8 0 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 29 30
ITS-Tools > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 25 34
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 6 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 Smart+red, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Smart+red, 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+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools 2022-gold Both tools   ITS-Tools 2022-gold
All computed OK 29 0 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 31 28
ITS-Tools > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 31 28
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 29 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 2022-gold, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than 2022-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, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, ITS-Tools is compared to BVT-2023. 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-2023 Both tools   ITS-Tools BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 2 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
ITS-Tools > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 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-2023, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than BVT-2023, 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-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for LoLA, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 25 0 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 29 30
ITS-Tools > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 30 29
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 25 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 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 LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for LTSMin, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
All computed OK 35 0 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 50 9
ITS-Tools > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 54 5
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 34 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 LTSMin, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than LTSMin, 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, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for Marcie, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  ITS-Tools Marcie Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie
All computed OK 19 2 40   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 59 2
ITS-Tools > Marcie 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Marcie 0 Times tool wins 50 11
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 19 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 Marcie, denote cases where ITS-Tools computed less values than Marcie, 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, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for ITS-Tools and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 30 minutes 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 45 0 13   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Smart 0 Times tool wins 51 7
ITS-Tools > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Smart 0 Times tool wins 54 4
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 41 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 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