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

# Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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 Marcie' 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).

# Marcie versus ITS-Tools

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

 Statistics on the execution Marcie ITS-Tools Both tools Marcie ITS-Tools Computed OK 97 16 115 Smallest Memory Footprint Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 114 114 Error detected 0 2 0 Shortest Execution Time Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 97 295 Times tool wins 152 76

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.

# Marcie versus LoLa

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

 Statistics on the execution Marcie LoLa Both tools Marcie LoLa Computed OK 35 184 177 Smallest Memory Footprint Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 97 299 Error detected 0 0 0 Shortest Execution Time Cannot Compute + Time-out 313 0 0 Times tool wins 120 276

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.

# Marcie versus LTSMin

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

 Statistics on the execution Marcie LTSMin Both tools Marcie LTSMin Computed OK 35 184 177 Smallest Memory Footprint Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 153 243 Error detected 0 0 0 Shortest Execution Time Cannot Compute + Time-out 313 0 0 Times tool wins 143 253

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.

# Marcie versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

 Statistics on the execution Marcie Tapaal(PAR) Both tools Marcie Tapaal(PAR) Computed OK 168 79 44 Smallest Memory Footprint Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 190 101 Error detected 0 0 0 Shortest Execution Time Cannot Compute + Time-out 208 133 105 Times tool wins 184 107

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.

# Marcie versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

 Statistics on the execution Marcie Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools Marcie Tapaal(SEQ) Computed OK 36 172 176 Smallest Memory Footprint Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 106 278 Error detected 0 2 0 Shortest Execution Time Cannot Compute + Time-out 303 1 10 Times tool wins 130 254

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.