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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityDeadlock 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 36 6 39   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 40 41
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 41 52 Times tool wins 46 35


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 55 74   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 7 123
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 55 1 0 Times tool wins 12 118


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 Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 51 4 24   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 52 27
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 51 51 Times tool wins 57 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

LTSMin versus Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Marcie Both tools   LTSMin Marcie
Computed OK 22 16 53   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 36 55
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 13 28 42 Times tool wins 42 49


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 26 47 49   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 28 94
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 52 18 3 Times tool wins 34 88


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 Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 9 42 66   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 9 108
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 42 9 13 Times tool wins 14 103


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 Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 10 37 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 10 102
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 10 18 Times tool wins 29 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