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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
Computed OK 197 0 164   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 305 56
Error detected 0 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 357 0 Times tool wins 345 16


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

LTSMin versus LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin LoLa Both tools   LTSMin LoLa
Computed OK 13 0 348   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 193 168
Error detected 0 12 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 0 Times tool wins 276 85


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

LTSMin versus PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 1050 runs (525 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin PeCan Both tools   LTSMin PeCan
Computed OK 97 0 264   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 222 139
Error detected 0 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 90 0 Times tool wins 263 98


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