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 PNXDD 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 PNXDD' 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).

PNXDD versus ITS-Tools

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

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


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

PNXDD versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD LTSMin Both tools   PNXDD LTSMin
Computed OK 0 38 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 22 44
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 38 0 64 Times tool wins 2 64


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

PNXDD versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   PNXDD Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 13 2 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 16 14
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 3 13 99 Times tool wins 14 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

PNXDD versus Marcie

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

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


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

PNXDD versus pnmc

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD pnmc Both tools   PNXDD pnmc
Computed OK 0 53 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 20 61
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 53 0 49 Times tool wins 0 81


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

PNXDD versus Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Smart Both tools   PNXDD Smart
Computed OK 19 14 9   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 19 23
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 19 88 Times tool wins 19 23


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

PNXDD versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   PNXDD Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 10 10 18   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 13 25
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 10 10 92 Times tool wins 14 24


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

PNXDD versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   PNXDD Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 13 8 15   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 14 22
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 9 13 93 Times tool wins 14 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

PNXDD versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  PNXDD ydd-pt Both tools   PNXDD ydd-pt
Computed OK 21 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 21 7
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 21 102 Times tool wins 27 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