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

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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 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 108 15 60   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 277 0 Times tool wins 108 75
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 198 13 38 Times tool wins 108 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 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 117 6 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 114 0 Times tool wins 118 56
Error detected 0 83 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 131 45 105 Times tool wins 135 39


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 ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie ITS-Tools Both tools   Marcie ITS-Tools
Computed OK 25 77 143   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 28 217
Error detected 0 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 82 23 154 Times tool wins 50 195


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 37 134 131   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 37 265
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 236 0 0 Times tool wins 45 257


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 37 128 131   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 105 191
Error detected 0 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 133 36 103 Times tool wins 67 229


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 40 110 128   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 56 222
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 212 4 24 Times tool wins 62 216


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

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 36 129 132   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 49 248
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 230 0 6 Times tool wins 61 236


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 74 28 94   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 79 117
Error detected 0 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 132 34 104 Times tool wins 93 103


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 65 45 103   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 65 148
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 146 29 90 Times tool wins 77 136


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