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

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 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 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 25 5 27   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 25 32
Error detected 6 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 28 55 Times tool wins 35 22


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 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 41 34 11   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 48 38
Error detected 3 55 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 53 8 10 Times tool wins 47 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 LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 11 40 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 12 80
Error detected 6 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 63 0 0 Times tool wins 12 80


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 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 51 31 1   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 51 32
Error detected 3 59 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 50 14 13 Times tool wins 51 32


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 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 11 48 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 16 84
Error detected 6 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 60 0 3 Times tool wins 12 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

Marcie versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 11 53 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 13 92
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 63 0 0 Times tool wins 13 92


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 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 24 2 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 25 29
Error detected 6 8 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 10 46 Times tool wins 28 26


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 242 runs (121 for Marcie 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 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 15 16 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 15 53
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 5 36 Times tool wins 18 50


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