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 pnmc 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 pnmc' 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).

pnmc versus ITS-Tools

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

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


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

pnmc versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc LTSMin Both tools   pnmc LTSMin
Computed OK 111 22 396   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 396 133
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 20 113 321 Times tool wins 389 140


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 324 1 183   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 345 163
Error detected 4 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 327 339 Times tool wins 362 146


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

pnmc versus Marcie

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

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


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

pnmc versus PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc PNXDD Both tools   pnmc PNXDD
Computed OK 285 0 222   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 324 183
Error detected 4 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 287 341 Times tool wins 439 68


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

pnmc versus Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Smart Both tools   pnmc Smart
Computed OK 265 15 242   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 279 243
Error detected 4 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 263 326 Times tool wins 352 170


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 283 7 224   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 291 223
Error detected 4 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 7 287 334 Times tool wins 367 147


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 299 5 208   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 330 182
Error detected 4 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 303 335 Times tool wins 374 138


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

pnmc versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ydd-pt Both tools   pnmc ydd-pt
Computed OK 422 0 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 422 85
Error detected 4 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 424 341 Times tool wins 471 36


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