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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for LoLa, so there are 525 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 58 179 182   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 70 349
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 279 0 0 Times tool wins 81 338


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 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for LTSMin, so there are 525 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 106 49 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 222 67
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 151 50 128 Times tool wins 183 106


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 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 525 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 164 30 76   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 187 83
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 133 109 146 Times tool wins 188 82


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 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for Marcie, so there are 525 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 24 29 216   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 234 35
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 26 254 Times tool wins 174 95


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 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for PeCan, so there are 525 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 64 163 176   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 158 245
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 263 6 16 Times tool wins 140 263


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 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for Tapaal(EXP), so there are 525 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 108 120 132   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 117 243
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 222 52 57 Times tool wins 121 239


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

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 525 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 117 121 123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 145 216
Error detected 6 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 223 61 56 Times tool wins 148 213


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