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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 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 115 42 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 226 65
Error detected 46 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 95 50 135 Times tool wins 190 101


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 178 12 71   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 206 55
Error detected 45 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 87 134 143 Times tool wins 192 69


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 58 64 191   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 240 73
Error detected 46 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 59 211 Times tool wins 204 109


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 pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for pnmc, 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 pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools pnmc Both tools   ITS-Tools pnmc
Computed OK 79 56 170   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 215 90
Error detected 44 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 11 122 Times tool wins 150 155


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 PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for PNXDD, 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 PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools PNXDD Both tools   ITS-Tools PNXDD
Computed OK 170 17 79   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 199 67
Error detected 45 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 87 121 143 Times tool wins 206 60


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 Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for Smart, 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 Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Smart Both tools   ITS-Tools Smart
Computed OK 147 15 102   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 164 100
Error detected 43 0 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 97 108 133 Times tool wins 175 89


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 166 19 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 175 93
Error detected 46 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 92 121 138 Times tool wins 190 78


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 172 18 77   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 193 74
Error detected 46 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 91 127 139 Times tool wins 194 73


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 ydd-pt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for ITS-Tools and 525 for ydd-pt, 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 ydd-pt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools ydd-pt Both tools   ITS-Tools ydd-pt
Computed OK 217 7 32   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 221 35
Error detected 45 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 86 177 144 Times tool wins 236 20


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