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 LTSMin 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 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 42 115 134   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 65 226
Error detected 0 46 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 50 95 135 Times tool wins 101 190


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 Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 93 0 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 111 65
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 92 185 Times tool wins 112 64


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 Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Marcie Both tools   LTSMin Marcie
Computed OK 11 90 165   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 76 190
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 122 148 Times tool wins 91 175


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 pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin pnmc Both tools   LTSMin pnmc
Computed OK 8 58 168   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 57 177
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 59 7 126 Times tool wins 65 169


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 PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin PNXDD Both tools   LTSMin PNXDD
Computed OK 81 1 95   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 102 75
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 80 184 Times tool wins 139 38


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 Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Smart Both tools   LTSMin Smart
Computed OK 88 29 88   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 91 114
Error detected 0 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 29 85 156 Times tool wins 107 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

LTSMin versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 80 6 96   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 82 100
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 80 179 Times tool wins 103 79


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 Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 86 5 90   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 93 88
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 86 180 Times tool wins 107 74


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 ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ydd-pt Both tools   LTSMin ydd-pt
Computed OK 137 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 144 32
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 136 185 Times tool wins 168 8


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