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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 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 16 33 33   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 45 37
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 9 55 Times tool wins 39 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

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for Tapaal(PAR), 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 Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 39 7 10   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 42 14
Error detected 16 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 42 70 Times tool wins 39 17


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 Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for Marcie, 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 Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Marcie Both tools   ITS-Tools Marcie
Computed OK 13 40 36   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 47 42
Error detected 16 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 25 13 49 Times tool wins 41 48


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 pnmc

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for pnmc, 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 pnmc are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools pnmc Both tools   ITS-Tools pnmc
Computed OK 14 46 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 48 47
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 31 6 43 Times tool wins 18 77


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 PNXDD

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for PNXDD, 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 PNXDD are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools PNXDD Both tools   ITS-Tools PNXDD
Computed OK 34 13 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 44 18
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 32 70 Times tool wins 45 17


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 Smart

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for Smart, 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 Smart are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Smart Both tools   ITS-Tools Smart
Computed OK 35 9 14   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 38 20
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 42 65 Times tool wins 36 22


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 Tapaal(EXP)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for Tapaal(EXP), 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 Tapaal(EXP) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 32 11 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 38 22
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 33 69 Times tool wins 40 20


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 Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for Tapaal(SEQ), 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 Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 34 8 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 41 16
Error detected 16 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 37 69 Times tool wins 40 17


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 ydd-pt

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for ITS-Tools and 139 for ydd-pt, 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 ydd-pt are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools ydd-pt Both tools   ITS-Tools ydd-pt
Computed OK 47 5 2   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 47 7
Error detected 16 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 51 72 Times tool wins 49 5


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