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

Introduction

This page presents how pnmc 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 pnmc' 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).

pnmc versus GreatSPN-Meddly

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   pnmc GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 24 3 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 26 38
Error detected 0 10 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 44 24 Times tool wins 41 23


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

pnmc versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ITS-Tools Both tools   pnmc ITS-Tools
Computed OK 20 12 41   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 22 51
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 38 29 Times tool wins 57 16


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

pnmc versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc LTSMin Both tools   pnmc LTSMin
Computed OK 16 4 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 27 0 0 Times tool wins 38 27
Error detected 3 8 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 35 29 Times tool wins 37 28


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

pnmc versus Marcie

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

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


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

pnmc versus PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc PNXDD Both tools   pnmc PNXDD
Computed OK 61 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 61 0
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 64 30 Times tool wins 61 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

pnmc versus TAPAAL(MC)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   pnmc TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 24 2 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 27 36
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 27 28 Times tool wins 31 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

pnmc versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   pnmc TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 24 2 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 27 36
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 27 28 Times tool wins 30 33


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

pnmc versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   pnmc TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 32 0 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 32 29
Error detected 3 9 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 29 27 Times tool wins 36 25


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

pnmc versus TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Both tools   pnmc TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)
Computed OK 28 5 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 30 36
Error detected 0 19 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 11 23 Times tool wins 35 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

pnmc versus StrataGEM0.5.0

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc StrataGEM0.5.0 Both tools   pnmc StrataGEM0.5.0
Computed OK 26 3 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 27 Times tool wins 41 23
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 27 29 Times tool wins 61 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