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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the QuasiLiveness 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 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 463 0 683   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 754 392
ITS-Tools > GreatSPN 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < GreatSPN 0 Times tool wins 781 365
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 463 83


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 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 116 11 1029   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = LoLA 0 Times tool wins 194 962
ITS-Tools > LoLA 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < LoLA 0 Times tool wins 185 971
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 11 116 72


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 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 233 12 913   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 377 781
ITS-Tools > Tapaal 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < Tapaal 0 Times tool wins 551 607
Do not compete 0 0 0
Error detected 0 15 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 218 71


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 30 minutes 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 320 8 826   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = 2020-gold 0 Times tool wins 441 713
ITS-Tools > 2020-gold 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < 2020-gold 0 Times tool wins 616 538
Do not compete 0 72 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 248 75


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 30 minutes 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 0 20 1146   Smallest Memory Footprint
ITS-Tools = BVT-2021 0 Times tool wins 0 1166
ITS-Tools > BVT-2021 0   Shortest Execution Time
ITS-Tools < BVT-2021 0 Times tool wins 0 1166
Do not compete 0 63 0
Error detected 0 0 0  
Cannot Compute + Time-out 83 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