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

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 Marcie' 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).

Marcie versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for GreatSPN, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie GreatSPN Both tools   Marcie GreatSPN
All computed OK 8 9 30   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 9 42
Marcie > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < GreatSPN 4 Times tool wins 10 41
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 8 10


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 Marcie computed more values than GreatSPN, denote cases where Marcie 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.

Marcie wins when points are below the diagonal, GreatSPN wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for ITS-Tools, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie ITS-Tools Both tools   Marcie ITS-Tools
All computed OK 3 4 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = ITS-Tools 2 Times tool wins 7 39
Marcie > ITS-Tools 37   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < ITS-Tools 0 Times tool wins 22 24
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 3 15


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 Marcie computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where Marcie 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus tedd-c

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for tedd-c, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to tedd-c are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie tedd-c Both tools   Marcie tedd-c
All computed OK 2 9 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = tedd-c 0 Times tool wins 30 21
Marcie > tedd-c 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < tedd-c 4 Times tool wins 20 31
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 2 10


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 Marcie computed more values than tedd-c, denote cases where Marcie computed less values than tedd-c, 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.

Marcie wins when points are below the diagonal, tedd-c wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus LoLa+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for LoLa+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to LoLa+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie LoLa+red Both tools   Marcie LoLa+red
All computed OK 42 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 42 0
Marcie > LoLa+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < LoLa+red 0 Times tool wins 42 0
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 42 19


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

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

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus LTSMin+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for LTSMin+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to LTSMin+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie LTSMin+red Both tools   Marcie LTSMin+red
All computed OK 16 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 24 18
Marcie > LTSMin+red 26   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < LTSMin+red 0 Times tool wins 38 4
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 16 19


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

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

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus Marcie+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for Marcie+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to Marcie+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie Marcie+red Both tools   Marcie Marcie+red
All computed OK 0 0 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = Marcie+red 4 Times tool wins 17 25
Marcie > Marcie+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < Marcie+red 0 Times tool wins 24 18
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 19


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 Marcie computed more values than Marcie+red, denote cases where Marcie 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus Smart+red

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for Smart+red, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to Smart+red are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie Smart+red Both tools   Marcie Smart+red
All computed OK 1 0 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = Smart+red 0 Times tool wins 2 40
Marcie > Smart+red 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < Smart+red 4 Times tool wins 9 33
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 19


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

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

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus 2022-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for 2022-gold, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to 2022-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie 2022-gold Both tools   Marcie 2022-gold
All computed OK 2 9 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = 2022-gold 0 Times tool wins 30 21
Marcie > 2022-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < 2022-gold 4 Times tool wins 20 31
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 2 10


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 Marcie computed more values than 2022-gold, denote cases where Marcie 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.

Marcie wins when points are below the diagonal, 2022-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus BVT-2023

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for BVT-2023, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to BVT-2023 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie BVT-2023 Both tools   Marcie BVT-2023
All computed OK 0 10 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = BVT-2023 0 Times tool wins 0 52
Marcie > BVT-2023 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < BVT-2023 4 Times tool wins 0 52
Do not compete 0 9 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 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 Marcie computed more values than BVT-2023, denote cases where Marcie 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.

Marcie wins when points are below the diagonal, BVT-2023 wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for LTSMin, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie LTSMin Both tools   Marcie LTSMin
All computed OK 16 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 24 18
Marcie > LTSMin 26   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < LTSMin 0 Times tool wins 30 12
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 16 19


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 Marcie computed more values than LTSMin, denote cases where Marcie 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.

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

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for pnmc, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie pnmc Both tools   Marcie pnmc
All computed OK 6 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = pnmc 2 Times tool wins 14 28
Marcie > pnmc 34   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < pnmc 0 Times tool wins 23 19
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 6 19


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 Marcie computed more values than pnmc, denote cases where Marcie computed less values than pnmc, 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.

Marcie wins when points are below the diagonal, pnmc wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart

Marcie versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 122 runs (61 for Marcie and 61 for Smart, so there are 61 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Marcie to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the executions
  Marcie Smart Both tools   Marcie Smart
All computed OK 14 0 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
Marcie = Smart 0 Times tool wins 14 28
Marcie > Smart 0   Shortest Execution Time
Marcie < Smart 2 Times tool wins 28 14
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 14 19


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 Marcie computed more values than Smart, denote cases where Marcie 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.

Marcie wins when points are below the diagonal, Smart wins when points are above the diagonal.

memory chart time chart