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 pnmc 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 pnmc' 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).

pnmc versus ITS-Tools

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ITS-Tools Both tools   pnmc ITS-Tools
Computed OK 46 14 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 9 0 0 Times tool wins 47 48
Error detected 0 16 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 6 31 43 Times tool wins 77 18


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

pnmc versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc LTSMin Both tools   pnmc LTSMin
Computed OK 16 1 65   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 72 10
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 16 48 Times tool wins 68 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

pnmc versus Tapaal(PAR)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 64 0 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 65 16
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 64 48 Times tool wins 68 13


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

pnmc versus Marcie

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

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

pnmc versus PNXDD

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

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

pnmc versus Smart

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Smart Both tools   pnmc Smart
Computed OK 59 1 22   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 59 23
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 59 48 Times tool wins 68 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

pnmc versus Tapaal(EXP)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(EXP) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(EXP)
Computed OK 53 0 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 56 25
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 53 49 Times tool wins 70 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

pnmc versus Tapaal(SEQ)

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   pnmc Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 58 0 23   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 65 16
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 58 48 Times tool wins 70 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

pnmc versus ydd-pt

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

Statistics on the execution
  pnmc ydd-pt Both tools   pnmc ydd-pt
Computed OK 74 0 7   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 9 Times tool wins 74 7
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 74 49 Times tool wins 80 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