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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for LoLa, 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 LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LoLa Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLa
Computed OK 196 268 579   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 235 808
Error detected 5 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 406 2 1 Times tool wins 282 761


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 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 194 271 581   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 615 431
Error detected 7 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 407 0 0 Times tool wins 615 431


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 279 174 496   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 543 406
Error detected 7 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 310 85 97 Times tool wins 620 329


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 313 66 462   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 739 102
Error detected 7 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 65 319 342 Times tool wins 727 114


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 PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for ITS-Tools and 1189 for PeCan, 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 PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools PeCan Both tools   ITS-Tools PeCan
Computed OK 522 124 253   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 613 286
Error detected 4 248 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 299 116 108 Times tool wins 594 305


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 207 270 568   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 441 604
Error detected 7 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 407 12 0 Times tool wins 601 444


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 241 221 534   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 482 514
Error detected 7 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 357 47 50 Times tool wins 626 370


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