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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the LTLFireability 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
Computed OK 86 4 44   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 124 10
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 91 0 Times tool wins 126 8


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

LTSMin versus LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin LoLa Both tools   LTSMin LoLa
Computed OK 1 0 129   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 47 83
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 1 0 Times tool wins 59 71


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

LTSMin versus PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 278 runs (139 for LTSMin 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 LTSMin to PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin PeCan Both tools   LTSMin PeCan
Computed OK 60 0 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 106 24
Error detected 0 48 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 12 0 Times tool wins 110 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