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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 ITS-Tools' 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).

ITS-Tools versus LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for LoLa, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LoLa Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLa
Computed OK 3 88 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 13 117
Error detected 8 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 88 0 1 Times tool wins 13 117


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

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for LTSMin, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
Computed OK 2 89 40   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 18 113
Error detected 7 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 89 0 0 Times tool wins 5 126


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

ITS-Tools versus PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for PeCan, so there are 139 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools PeCan Both tools   ITS-Tools PeCan
Computed OK 17 46 25   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 30 58
Error detected 5 14 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 61 14 28 Times tool wins 29 59


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