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

Introduction

This page presents how PeCan do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 47 239 117   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 123 280
Error detected 106 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 48 124 43 Times tool wins 135 268


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 1 197 163   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 21 340
Error detected 106 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 91 0 0 Times tool wins 36 325


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 0 197 164   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 150 211
Error detected 106 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 91 0 0 Times tool wins 136 225


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 Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   PeCan Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 38 155 126   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 132 187
Error detected 106 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 55 44 36 Times tool wins 151 168


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 Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Marcie Both tools   PeCan Marcie
Computed OK 77 141 87   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 164 141
Error detected 106 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 221 76 Times tool wins 145 160


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 Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   PeCan Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 0 191 164   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 113 242
Error detected 106 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 85 0 6 Times tool wins 136 219


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 Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   PeCan Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 13 168 151   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 122 210
Error detected 106 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 65 16 26 Times tool wins 140 192


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