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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
Computed OK 230 0 131   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 258 103
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 392 0 Times tool wins 263 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

LTSMin versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin LoLa Both tools   LTSMin LoLa
Computed OK 2 0 359   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 165 196
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 2 0 Times tool wins 70 291


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

LTSMin versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 238 0 123   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 269 92
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 238 0 Times tool wins 304 57


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

LTSMin versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Marcie Both tools   LTSMin Marcie
Computed OK 184 33 177   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 244 150
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 315 0 Times tool wins 253 141


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

LTSMin versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 13 0 348   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 94 267
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 11 0 Times tool wins 236 125


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