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 Marcie 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 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 ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Marcie 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 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 87 55 470   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 100 512
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 60 79 572 Times tool wins 225 387


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

Marcie versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie LoLa Both tools   Marcie LoLa
Computed OK 99 391 458   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 129 819
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 631 2 1 Times tool wins 149 799


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

Marcie versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Marcie 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 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 222 108 335   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 431 234
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 348 125 284 Times tool wins 426 239


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 367 50 190   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 367 240
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 290 270 342 Times tool wins 414 193


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

Marcie versus PeCan

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie PeCan Both tools   Marcie PeCan
Computed OK 131 347 426   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 131 773
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 588 22 44 Times tool wins 287 617


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 217 272 340   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 217 612
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 512 120 120 Times tool wins 250 579


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Marcie 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 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 231 262 326   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 239 580
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 502 134 130 Times tool wins 312 507


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