fond

jQuery Multi Level CSS Menu Css3Menu.com

Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools%20compared%20to%20other%20tools%20(%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BDStripped%EF%BF%BD%EF%BF%BD%20models,%20CTLFireability)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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 ITS-Tools' 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).

ITS-Tools versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LoLa Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLa
Computed OK 52 182 177   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 138 273
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 292 0 2 Times tool wins 135 276


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.

memory chart time chart

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
Computed OK 52 184 177   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 210 203
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 294 0 0 Times tool wins 174 239


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

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 187 79 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 207 101
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 191 137 103 Times tool wins 207 101


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

ITS-Tools versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Marcie Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie
Computed OK 27 22 202   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 213 38
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 22 29 272 Times tool wins 153 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

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 53 171 176   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 154 246
Error detected 0 0 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 283 1 11 Times tool wins 164 236


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