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 pnmc 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 pnmc' 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).

pnmc versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ITS-Tools Both tools   pnmc ITS-Tools
Computed OK 56 79 170   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 90 215
Error detected 0 44 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 11 108 122 Times tool wins 155 150


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

pnmc versus LTSMin

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

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


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 143 0 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 153 73
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 144 133 Times tool wins 159 67


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

pnmc versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Marcie Both tools   pnmc Marcie
Computed OK 32 61 194   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 226 61
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 143 127 Times tool wins 189 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

pnmc versus PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc PNXDD Both tools   pnmc PNXDD
Computed OK 130 0 96   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 144 82
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 131 133 Times tool wins 171 55


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

pnmc versus Smart

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

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


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 127 3 99   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 130 99
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 129 130 Times tool wins 161 68


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 133 2 93   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 146 82
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 135 131 Times tool wins 164 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

pnmc versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ydd-pt Both tools   pnmc ydd-pt
Computed OK 187 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 187 39
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 188 133 Times tool wins 207 19


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