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 pnmc 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 pnmc' 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).

pnmc versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ITS-Tools Both tools   pnmc ITS-Tools
Computed OK 56 81 144   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 85 196
Error detected 0 44 2   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 27 122 132 Times tool wins 160 121


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

pnmc versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc LTSMin Both tools   pnmc LTSMin
Computed OK 37 13 163   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 147 66
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 38 147 Times tool wins 152 61


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 117 1 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 127 74
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 119 158 Times tool wins 135 66


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

pnmc versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Marcie Both tools   pnmc Marcie
Computed OK 16 70 184   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 164 0 0 Times tool wins 199 71
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 16 128 143 Times tool wins 187 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

pnmc versus PNXDD

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

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


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

pnmc versus Smart

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

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

pnmc versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 103 4 97   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 105 99
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 105 155 Times tool wins 136 68


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

pnmc versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 108 3 92   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 119 84
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 110 156 Times tool wins 140 63


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

pnmc versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ydd-pt Both tools   pnmc ydd-pt
Computed OK 161 0 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 164 Times tool wins 161 39
Error detected 2 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 162 159 Times tool wins 184 16


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