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

Introduction

This page presents how PNXDD do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 PNXDD' 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).

PNXDD versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD ITS-Tools Both tools   PNXDD ITS-Tools
Computed OK 21 148 77   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 71 175
Error detected 0 45 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 111 103 151 Times tool wins 42 204


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

PNXDD versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD LTSMin Both tools   PNXDD LTSMin
Computed OK 1 79 97   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 74 103
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 78 1 184 Times tool wins 17 160


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

PNXDD versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   PNXDD Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 30 16 68   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 50 64
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 31 246 Times tool wins 33 81


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

PNXDD versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Marcie Both tools   PNXDD Marcie
Computed OK 0 156 98   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 91 163
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 103 112 159 Times tool wins 50 204


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

PNXDD versus pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD pnmc Both tools   PNXDD pnmc
Computed OK 0 102 98   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 81 119
Error detected 1 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 103 0 159 Times tool wins 13 187


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

PNXDD versus Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Smart Both tools   PNXDD Smart
Computed OK 41 60 57   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 41 117
Error detected 1 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 60 39 202 Times tool wins 43 115


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

PNXDD versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   PNXDD Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 27 30 71   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 30 98
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 30 28 232 Times tool wins 34 94


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

PNXDD versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   PNXDD Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 28 25 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 40 83
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 29 237 Times tool wins 38 85


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

PNXDD versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD ydd-pt Both tools   PNXDD ydd-pt
Computed OK 60 1 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 60 39
Error detected 1 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 60 261 Times tool wins 78 21


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