fond
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,%20StateSpace)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how Smart 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 Smart' 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).

Smart versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart ITS-Tools Both tools   Smart ITS-Tools
Computed OK 24 132 93   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 109 140
Error detected 0 43 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 106 119 135 Times tool wins 98 151


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

Smart versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart LTSMin Both tools   Smart LTSMin
Computed OK 29 88 88   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 113 92
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 85 29 156 Times tool wins 99 106


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

Smart versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Smart Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 74 41 43   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 110 48
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 75 202 Times tool wins 93 65


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

Smart versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Marcie Both tools   Smart Marcie
Computed OK 10 147 107   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 114 150
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 92 122 149 Times tool wins 100 164


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

Smart versus pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart pnmc Both tools   Smart pnmc
Computed OK 11 94 106   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 111 100
Error detected 3 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 93 11 148 Times tool wins 81 130


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

Smart versus PNXDD

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

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

Smart versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Smart Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 69 53 48   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 86 84
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 51 70 190 Times tool wins 87 83


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

Smart versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Smart Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 72 50 45   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 89 78
Error detected 3 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 48 73 193 Times tool wins 85 82


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

Smart versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  Smart ydd-pt Both tools   Smart ydd-pt
Computed OK 97 19 20   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 105 31
Error detected 3 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 97 224 Times tool wins 110 26


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