fond
Model Checking Contest 2021
11th edition, Paris, France, June 23, 2021
ITS-Tools compared to other tools (��Known�� 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 «Known» 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 2458 runs (1229 for ITS-Tools and 1229 for GreatSPN, so there are 1229 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 324 59 273   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 17 Times tool wins 529 440
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 165   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 131 Times tool wins 428 541
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 1 0 1  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 58 324 259


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 2458 runs (1229 for ITS-Tools and 1229 for LoLA, so there are 1229 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 250 194 133   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 10 Times tool wins 490 614
ITS-Tools > LoLA 191   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 326 Times tool wins 371 733
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 199 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 247 106 70


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 2458 runs (1229 for ITS-Tools and 1229 for Tapaal, so there are 1229 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 7 289 186   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 10 Times tool wins 546 653
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 200   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 507 Times tool wins 370 829
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 4 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 287 3 30


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 2458 runs (1229 for ITS-Tools and 1229 for 2020-gold, so there are 1229 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 57 247 174   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2020-gold 14 Times tool wins 669 488
ITS-Tools > 2020-gold 216   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2020-gold 449 Times tool wins 426 731
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 2 13 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 252 51 65


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 2458 runs (1229 for ITS-Tools and 1229 for BVT-2021, so there are 1229 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 8 309 357   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2021 1 Times tool wins 8 1211
ITS-Tools > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2021 544 Times tool wins 8 1211
Do not compete 0 6 0
Error detected 2 12 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 317 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