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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 Cunf

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Cunf Both tools   ITS-Tools Cunf
Computed OK 178 49 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 277 0 Times tool wins 182 69
Error detected 113 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 71 34 18 Times tool wins 183 68


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 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 189 25 13   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 114 0 Times tool wins 191 36
Error detected 58 42 55   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 49 115 40 Times tool wins 199 28


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 93 153 109   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 112 243
Error detected 111 3 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 0 0 Times tool wins 139 216


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 92 149 110   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 147 204
Error detected 108 1 5   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 43 93 46 Times tool wins 181 170


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 130 95 72   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 199 98
Error detected 113 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 164 73 Times tool wins 181 116


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 102 134 100   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 144 192
Error detected 112 5 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 74 12 15 Times tool wins 157 179


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 90 148 112   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 129 221
Error detected 112 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 83 0 6 Times tool wins 166 184


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 188 53 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 194 61
Error detected 99 5 14   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 50 142 39 Times tool wins 195 60


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 167 96 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 189 109
Error detected 113 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 57 103 32 Times tool wins 193 105


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