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

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 29 11 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 29 40
Error detected 12 9 4   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 28 40 Times tool wins 40 29


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 17 12 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 17 53
Error detected 16 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 25 42 Times tool wins 27 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

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 12 3 46   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 30 31
Error detected 12 4 4   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 21 43 Times tool wins 23 38


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 pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Marcie and 121 for pnmc, 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 pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie pnmc Both tools   Marcie pnmc
Computed OK 11 14 47   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 12 60
Error detected 16 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 4 26 Times tool wins 16 56


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 PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Marcie and 121 for PNXDD, 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 PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie PNXDD Both tools   Marcie PNXDD
Computed OK 58 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 58 0
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 60 34 Times tool wins 58 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 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 27 8 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 27 39
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 21 34 Times tool wins 29 37


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 27 8 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 27 39
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 21 34 Times tool wins 29 37


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 31 2 27   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 31 29
Error detected 16 9 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 23 33 Times tool wins 34 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 27 7 31   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 27 38
Error detected 16 22 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 8 26 Times tool wins 29 36


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 StrataGEM0.5.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 242 runs (121 for Marcie and 121 for StrataGEM0.5.0, 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 StrataGEM0.5.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie StrataGEM0.5.0 Both tools   Marcie StrataGEM0.5.0
Computed OK 23 3 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 27 0 Times tool wins 33 28
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 23 33 Times tool wins 58 3


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