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 Smart 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 Smart' 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).

Smart versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart ITS-Tools Both tools   Smart ITS-Tools
Computed OK 15 147 102   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 100 164
Error detected 0 43 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 108 97 133 Times tool wins 89 175


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

Smart versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart LTSMin Both tools   Smart LTSMin
Computed OK 29 88 88   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 114 91
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 85 29 156 Times tool wins 98 107


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.

memory chart time chart

Smart versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Smart Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 74 40 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 110 47
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 74 203 Times tool wins 93 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

Smart versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Marcie Both tools   Smart Marcie
Computed OK 10 148 107   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 114 151
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 92 121 149 Times tool wins 99 166


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

Smart versus pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart pnmc Both tools   Smart pnmc
Computed OK 3 112 114   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 109 120
Error detected 3 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 3 130 Times tool wins 75 154


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

Smart versus PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart PNXDD Both tools   Smart PNXDD
Computed OK 60 39 57   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 111 45
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 60 204 Times tool wins 116 40


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

Smart versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Smart Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 69 54 48   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 90 81
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 52 70 189 Times tool wins 87 84


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

Smart versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Smart Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 72 50 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 93 74
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 48 73 193 Times tool wins 86 81


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

Smart versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart ydd-pt Both tools   Smart ydd-pt
Computed OK 97 19 20   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 106 30
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 97 224 Times tool wins 110 26


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