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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red' 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).

LTSMin+red versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red GreatSPN Both tools   LTSMin+red GreatSPN
All computed OK 24 9 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 32 29
LTSMin+red > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 33 28
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red and 61 for ITS-Tools, 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 LTSMin+red to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin+red ITS-Tools
All computed OK 0 7 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 27 32
LTSMin+red > ITS-Tools 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 21 38
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 0 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red Tapaal Both tools   LTSMin+red Tapaal
All computed OK 11 3 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 15 40
LTSMin+red > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 18 37
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 3 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 10 4


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 LTSMin+red computed more values than Tapaal, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Tapaal wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red LoLa+red Both tools   LTSMin+red LoLa+red
All computed OK 0 3 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 31 24
LTSMin+red > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 20 35
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 0 6


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 LTSMin+red computed more values than LoLa+red, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLa+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red Marcie+red Both tools   LTSMin+red Marcie+red
All computed OK 0 9 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 22 39
LTSMin+red > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 15 46
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red Smart+red Both tools   LTSMin+red Smart+red
All computed OK 3 2 49   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 24 30
LTSMin+red > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 15 39
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 2 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 1 7


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 LTSMin+red computed more values than Smart+red, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart+red wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red 2022-gold Both tools   LTSMin+red 2022-gold
All computed OK 25 3 27   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 26 29
LTSMin+red > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 26 29
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 25 6


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 LTSMin+red computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, LTSMin+red is compared to BVT-2023. It is a good way to check how LTSMin+red compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When LTSMin+red is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red BVT-2023 Both tools   LTSMin+red BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 9 52   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
LTSMin+red > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 61
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red LoLA Both tools   LTSMin+red LoLA
All computed OK 20 2 32   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 25 29
LTSMin+red > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 25 29
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 20 7


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 LTSMin+red computed more values than LoLA, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LoLA wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red LTSMin Both tools   LTSMin+red LTSMin
All computed OK 28 0 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 43 9
LTSMin+red > LTSMin 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 47 5
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 1 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 27 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, LTSMin wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red Marcie Both tools   LTSMin+red Marcie
All computed OK 19 9 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = Marcie 0 Times tool wins 52 9
LTSMin+red > Marcie 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < Marcie 0 Times tool wins 48 13
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than Marcie, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Marcie wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

LTSMin+red versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for LTSMin+red 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 LTSMin+red to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  LTSMin+red Smart Both tools   LTSMin+red Smart
All computed OK 38 0 13   Smallest Memory Footprint
LTSMin+red = Smart 0 Times tool wins 44 7
LTSMin+red > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
LTSMin+red < Smart 0 Times tool wins 47 4
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 34 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 LTSMin+red computed more values than Smart, denote cases where LTSMin+red 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.

LTSMin+red wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart