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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus Cunf

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Cunf Both tools   LTSMin Cunf
Computed OK 186 0 73   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 277 0 Times tool wins 189 70
Error detected 6 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 137 50 2 Times tool wins 188 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

LTSMin versus GreatSPN-Meddly

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   LTSMin GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 222 1 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 114 0 Times tool wins 230 30
Error detected 1 92 5   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 114 130 25 Times tool wins 230 30


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

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
Computed OK 149 92 110   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 204 147
Error detected 1 108 5   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 93 43 46 Times tool wins 170 181


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

LTSMin versus LoLA2.0

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin LoLA2.0 Both tools   LTSMin LoLA2.0
Computed OK 5 8 254   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 50 217
Error detected 6 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 139 0 0 Times tool wins 68 199


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

LTSMin versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Marcie Both tools   LTSMin Marcie
Computed OK 129 37 130   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 180 116
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 134 103 Times tool wins 212 84


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

LTSMin versus TAPAAL(MC)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   LTSMin TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 30 5 229   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 133 131
Error detected 5 5 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 137 25 2 Times tool wins 99 165


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

LTSMin versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   LTSMin TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 5 6 254   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 104 161
Error detected 5 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 138 5 1 Times tool wins 119 146


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

LTSMin versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   LTSMin TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 193 1 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 203 57
Error detected 6 19 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 137 179 2 Times tool wins 222 38


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

LTSMin versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   LTSMin TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 129 1 130   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 138 122
Error detected 6 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 137 133 2 Times tool wins 177 83


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