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

Introduction

This page presents how Marcie do cope efficiently with the UpperBounds 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 39 6 37   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 41 41
Error detected 1 3 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 8 39 54 Times tool wins 50 32


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 LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  Marcie LoLa Both tools   Marcie LoLa
Computed OK 6 59 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 30 105
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 62 1 0 Times tool wins 58 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

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 60 0 16   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 60 16
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 54 59 Times tool wins 65 11


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 41 3 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 46 33
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 36 56 Times tool wins 63 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 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 47 3 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 9 0 Times tool wins 49 30
Error detected 0 0 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 41 56 Times tool wins 65 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 76 0 0   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 76 0
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 77 62 Times tool wins 76 0


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