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 Marcie 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 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 185 123 400   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 205 503
Error detected 1 108 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 125 80 478 Times tool wins 282 426


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

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 200 33 385   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 441 177
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 259 90 344 Times tool wins 399 219


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 404 3 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 404 184
Error detected 0 1 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 229 292 374 Times tool wins 421 167


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 pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie pnmc Both tools   Marcie pnmc
Computed OK 144 66 441   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 145 506
Error detected 1 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 292 30 311 Times tool wins 202 449


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 PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie PNXDD Both tools   Marcie PNXDD
Computed OK 363 0 222   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 380 205
Error detected 1 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 226 251 377 Times tool wins 466 119


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

Marcie versus Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Smart Both tools   Marcie Smart
Computed OK 354 26 231   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 360 251
Error detected 1 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 252 238 351 Times tool wins 391 220


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 358 4 227   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 359 230
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 230 248 373 Times tool wins 430 159


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

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 374 2 211   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 381 206
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 228 263 375 Times tool wins 440 147


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 ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie ydd-pt Both tools   Marcie ydd-pt
Computed OK 500 0 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 337 0 Times tool wins 500 85
Error detected 1 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 226 388 377 Times tool wins 543 42


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