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,%20CTLCardinality)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie 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 Marcie' 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).

Marcie versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie ITS-Tools Both tools   Marcie ITS-Tools
Computed OK 95 16 115   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 112 114
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 95 297 Times tool wins 153 73


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

Marcie versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie LoLa Both tools   Marcie LoLa
Computed OK 34 183 176   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 95 298
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 314 1 1 Times tool wins 119 274


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

Marcie versus LTSMin

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

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


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 166 79 44   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 188 101
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 210 133 105 Times tool wins 182 107


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 34 172 176   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 164 0 Times tool wins 104 278
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 305 1 10 Times tool wins 128 254


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