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 PeCan 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 PeCan' 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).

PeCan versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan ITS-Tools Both tools   PeCan ITS-Tools
Computed OK 47 25 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 64 31
Error detected 48 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 79 12 Times tool wins 67 28


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

PeCan versus LoLa

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan LoLa Both tools   PeCan LoLa
Computed OK 1 60 69   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 32 98
Error detected 48 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 1 0 Times tool wins 32 98


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

PeCan versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan LTSMin Both tools   PeCan LTSMin
Computed OK 0 60 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 24 106
Error detected 48 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 0 0 Times tool wins 20 110


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