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

Introduction

This page presents how Cunf do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 Cunf' 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).

Cunf versus GreatSPN-Meddly

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   Cunf GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 24 93 49   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 163 0 114 Times tool wins 72 94
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 103 45 Times tool wins 72 94


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

Cunf versus LoLA2.0

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf LoLA2.0 Both tools   Cunf LoLA2.0
Computed OK 5 169 68   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 140 0 137 Times tool wins 44 198
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 32 10 20 Times tool wins 60 182


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

Cunf versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf LTSMin Both tools   Cunf LTSMin
Computed OK 14 86 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 277 0 0 Times tool wins 73 86
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 224 35 Times tool wins 72 87


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

Cunf versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf Marcie Both tools   Cunf Marcie
Computed OK 12 111 61   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 277 0 0 Times tool wins 73 111
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 194 38 Times tool wins 71 113


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

Cunf versus TAPAAL(MC)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   Cunf TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 14 98 59   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 140 0 137 Times tool wins 65 106
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 20 78 32 Times tool wins 67 104


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

Cunf versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   Cunf TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 1 192 72   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 140 0 137 Times tool wins 47 218
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 51 2 1 Times tool wins 67 198


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

Cunf versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   Cunf TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 31 69 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 140 0 137 Times tool wins 69 73
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 111 45 Times tool wins 73 69


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

Cunf versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   Cunf TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 15 151 58   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 140 0 137 Times tool wins 70 154
Error detected 2 10 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 35 31 17 Times tool wins 70 154


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