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

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityBounds 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 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 82 16 80   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 114 0 Times tool wins 82 96
Error detected 3 44 9   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 134 45 96 Times tool wins 106 72


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 40 135 122   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 54 243
Error detected 12 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 224 1 6 Times tool wins 81 216


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 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 162 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 266 0 Times tool wins 162 0
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 128 36 102 Times tool wins 162 0


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 92 89 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 101 150
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 179 57 51 Times tool wins 114 137


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 37 137 125   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 69 230
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 226 1 4 Times tool wins 115 184


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

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 104 19 58   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 119 62
Error detected 12 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 116 65 114 Times tool wins 136 45


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 104 19 58   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 137 0 Times tool wins 119 62
Error detected 12 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 116 65 114 Times tool wins 136 45


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