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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
Computed OK 136 218 307   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 177 484
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 103 345 306 Times tool wins 260 401


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

LTSMin versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin LoLa Both tools   LTSMin LoLa
Computed OK 2 408 441   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 49 802
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 408 2 1 Times tool wins 60 791


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

LTSMin versus Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 227 24 216   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 256 211
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 24 227 385 Times tool wins 302 165


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

LTSMin versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Marcie Both tools   LTSMin Marcie
Computed OK 108 222 335   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 234 431
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 125 348 284 Times tool wins 239 426


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

LTSMin versus PeCan

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin PeCan Both tools   LTSMin PeCan
Computed OK 48 378 395   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 103 718
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 383 40 26 Times tool wins 200 621


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

LTSMin versus Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 59 228 384   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 61 610
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 228 59 181 Times tool wins 76 595


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

LTSMin versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 68 213 375   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 84 572
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 213 68 196 Times tool wins 158 498


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