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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityComputeBounds 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 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 GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 39 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 0 0 Times tool wins 0 39
Error detected 0 14 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 41 27 Times tool wins 0 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

LTSMin versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 91 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 27 0 Times tool wins 0 91
Error detected 0 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 0 0 Times tool wins 0 91


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 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 64 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 0 0 Times tool wins 0 64
Error detected 0 10 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 34 13 Times tool wins 0 64


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 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 43 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 27 0 Times tool wins 0 43
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 49 0 Times tool wins 0 43


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 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 94 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 27 0 Times tool wins 0 94
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 0 0 Times tool wins 0 94


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 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 31 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 27 0 Times tool wins 0 31
Error detected 0 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 56 0 Times tool wins 0 31


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 242 runs (121 for LTSMin 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 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 0 47 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 94 27 0 Times tool wins 0 47
Error detected 0 9 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 38 0 Times tool wins 0 47


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