fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
Marcie compared to other tools («Stripped» models, ReachabilityDeadlock)
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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 Marcie' 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).

Marcie versus Cunf

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Cunf Both tools   Marcie Cunf
Computed OK 111 14 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 277 0 Times tool wins 111 73
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 196 14 38 Times tool wins 113 71


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

Marcie versus GreatSPN-Meddly

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   Marcie GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 75 46 95   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 114 0 Times tool wins 76 140
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 133 48 101 Times tool wins 104 112


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

Marcie versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for Marcie 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 Marcie to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie LoLA2.0 Both tools   Marcie LoLA2.0
Computed OK 42 108 128   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 65 213
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 210 7 24 Times tool wins 71 207


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

Marcie versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for Marcie 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 Marcie to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie LTSMin Both tools   Marcie LTSMin
Computed OK 65 41 105   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 122 89
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 41 65 193 Times tool wins 110 101


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

Marcie versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for Marcie 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 Marcie to TAPAAL(MC) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   Marcie TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 84 71 86   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 84 157
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 173 49 61 Times tool wins 95 146


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

Marcie versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for Marcie 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 Marcie to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   Marcie TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 36 130 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 66 234
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 232 1 2 Times tool wins 92 208


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

Marcie versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   Marcie TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 87 28 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 105 93
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 130 52 104 Times tool wins 123 75


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

Marcie versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   Marcie TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 49 88 121   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 49 209
Error detected 0 10 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 194 8 40 Times tool wins 106 152


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