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 Marcie 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 Marcie' 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).

Marcie versus ITS-Tools

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

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


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

Marcie versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie LTSMin Both tools   Marcie LTSMin
Computed OK 21 11 55   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 62 25
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 16 48 Times tool wins 49 38


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 59 0 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 59 17
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 53 59 Times tool wins 60 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

Marcie versus pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie pnmc Both tools   Marcie pnmc
Computed OK 13 18 63   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 13 81
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 21 8 41 Times tool wins 21 73


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

Marcie versus PNXDD

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie PNXDD Both tools   Marcie PNXDD
Computed OK 48 0 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 53 23
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 43 59 Times tool wins 67 9


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

Marcie versus Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Smart Both tools   Marcie Smart
Computed OK 59 6 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 59 23
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 54 53 Times tool wins 61 21


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 48 0 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 49 27
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 43 59 Times tool wins 62 14


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

Marcie versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Marcie Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 53 0 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 54 22
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 47 59 Times tool wins 62 14


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

Marcie versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie ydd-pt Both tools   Marcie ydd-pt
Computed OK 69 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 69 7
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 64 59 Times tool wins 75 1


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