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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin 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 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 184 52 177   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 203 210
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 294 0 Times tool wins 239 174


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 150 211
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 2 0 Times tool wins 84 277


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 240 0 121   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 263 98
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 240 0 Times tool wins 318 43


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 180 43 181   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 226 178
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 301 0 Times tool wins 252 152


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 14 0 347   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 80 281
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 12 0 Times tool wins 265 96


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