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

Introduction

This page presents how Cunf do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 121 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 6 8 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 98 0 0 Times tool wins 6 8
Error detected 1 28 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 73 10 Times tool wins 6 8


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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for ITS-Tools, so there are 121 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Cunf to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Cunf ITS-Tools Both tools   Cunf ITS-Tools
Computed OK 5 47 1   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 98 0 0 Times tool wins 5 48
Error detected 0 47 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 22 1 Times tool wins 5 48


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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for LoLA2.0, so there are 121 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 0 87 6   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 71 0 27 Times tool wins 5 88
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0 Times tool wins 5 88


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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for LTSMin, so there are 121 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 0 84 6   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 98 0 0 Times tool wins 6 84
Error detected 3 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 27 0 Times tool wins 5 85


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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for Marcie, so there are 121 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 1 67 5   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 98 0 0 Times tool wins 6 67
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 41 7 Times tool wins 6 67


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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 121 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 0 83 6   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 71 0 27 Times tool wins 5 84
Error detected 3 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 3 0 Times tool wins 6 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

Cunf versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 121 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 0 88 6   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 71 0 27 Times tool wins 4 90
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 0 0 Times tool wins 6 88


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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 121 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 4 34 2   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 71 0 27 Times tool wins 6 34
Error detected 3 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 42 14 Times tool wins 5 35


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 242 runs (121 for Cunf and 121 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ), so there are 121 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 3 49 3   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 71 0 27 Times tool wins 6 49
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 36 6 Times tool wins 6 49


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