fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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 ITS-Tools' 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).

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for LTSMin, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
Computed OK 231 126 292   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 475 174
Error detected 108 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 231 107 327 Times tool wins 395 254


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 373 34 150   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 430 127
Error detected 107 1 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 194 302 364 Times tool wins 398 159


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for Marcie, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Marcie Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie
Computed OK 123 185 400   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 503 205
Error detected 108 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 80 125 478 Times tool wins 426 282


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for pnmc, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools pnmc Both tools   ITS-Tools pnmc
Computed OK 174 158 349   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 459 222
Error detected 104 0 4   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 261 44 297 Times tool wins 289 392


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for PNXDD, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools PNXDD Both tools   ITS-Tools PNXDD
Computed OK 352 51 171   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 418 156
Error detected 106 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 194 264 364 Times tool wins 455 119


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for Smart, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Smart Both tools   ITS-Tools Smart
Computed OK 314 48 209   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 342 229
Error detected 102 0 6   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 225 256 333 Times tool wins 362 209


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for Tapaal(EXP), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 343 51 180   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 366 208
Error detected 108 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 204 267 354 Times tool wins 398 176


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 356 46 167   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 404 165
Error detected 108 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 202 282 356 Times tool wins 405 164


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus ydd-pt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for ydd-pt, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to ydd-pt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools ydd-pt Both tools   ITS-Tools ydd-pt
Computed OK 459 21 64   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 465 79
Error detected 106 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 189 396 369 Times tool wins 499 45


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result without error, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool computed a bad value and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart