fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («Known» models, ReachabilityCardinality)
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in termsof 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 whileothers 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-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 404 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-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   ITS-Tools GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 195 54 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 114 0 Times tool wins 204 74
Error detected 107 30 18   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 134 25 Times tool wins 213 65


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for LoLA2.0, so there are 404 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 LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LoLA2.0 Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLA2.0
Computed OK 114 141 110   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 139 226
Error detected 118 9 7   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 55 0 0 Times tool wins 160 205


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for LTSMin, so there are 404 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 LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
Computed OK 136 61 88   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 172 113
Error detected 51 41 74   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 26 111 29 Times tool wins 205 80


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for Marcie, so there are 404 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 Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Marcie Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie
Computed OK 201 50 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 223 51
Error detected 114 25 11   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 249 46 Times tool wins 221 53


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 404 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(MC) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   ITS-Tools TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 121 133 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 168 189
Error detected 123 2 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 48 20 7 Times tool wins 179 178


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 404 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(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   ITS-Tools TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 106 142 118   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 148 218
Error detected 123 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 52 2 3 Times tool wins 180 186


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 404 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-OTF(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   ITS-Tools TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 209 48 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 217 55
Error detected 118 17 7   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 33 158 22 Times tool wins 217 55


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for ITS-Tools and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 404 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-OTF(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   ITS-Tools TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 173 88 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 193 119
Error detected 125 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 111 17 Times tool wins 195 117


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart