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 PeCan 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 PeCan' 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).

PeCan versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan ITS-Tools Both tools   PeCan ITS-Tools
Computed OK 118 18 146   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 201 81
Error detected 7 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 279 78 Times tool wins 213 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

PeCan versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan LoLa Both tools   PeCan LoLa
Computed OK 10 94 254   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 174 184
Error detected 4 9 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 90 1 0 Times tool wins 193 165


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

PeCan versus LTSMin

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

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


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