fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2017
7th edition, Zaragoza, Spain, June 27, 2017
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, CTLCardinality)
Last Updated
June 27, 2017

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the CTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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 ITS-Tools' 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).

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for ITS-Tools and 1019 for LTSMin, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
Computed OK 27 494 268   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 247 542
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 723 0 1 Times tool wins 203 586


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

ITS-Tools versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for ITS-Tools and 1019 for LoLA, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLA
Computed OK 2 701 293   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 146 850
Error detected 0 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 704 0 20 Times tool wins 144 852


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

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for ITS-Tools and 1019 for Tapaal, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal
Computed OK 27 495 268   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 180 610
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 724 0 0 Times tool wins 222 568


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

ITS-Tools versus MARCIE

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for ITS-Tools and 1019 for MARCIE, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to MARCIE are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools MARCIE Both tools   ITS-Tools MARCIE
Computed OK 41 138 254   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 257 176
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 138 41 586 Times tool wins 180 253


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

ITS-Tools versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for ITS-Tools and 1019 for GreatSPN, so there are 1019 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing ITS-Tools to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools GreatSPN
Computed OK 122 65 173   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 162 198
Error detected 0 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 65 118 659 Times tool wins 182 178


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