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

Introduction

This page presents how PeCan do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 28 43 20   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 41 50
Error detected 37 0 3   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 19 50 23 Times tool wins 35 56


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 82 47   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 14 116
Error detected 40 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 42 1 0 Times tool wins 11 119


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 82 48   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 44 86
Error detected 40 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 42 0 0 Times tool wins 38 92


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 Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   PeCan Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 14 74 34   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 38 84
Error detected 40 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 35 15 7 Times tool wins 43 79


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 Marcie

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Marcie Both tools   PeCan Marcie
Computed OK 22 49 26   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 48 49
Error detected 40 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 37 27 Times tool wins 44 53


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 Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   PeCan Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 1 81 47   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 32 97
Error detected 39 1 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 42 0 0 Times tool wins 39 90


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 Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  PeCan Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   PeCan Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 10 79 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 32 95
Error detected 40 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 10 3 Times tool wins 40 87


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