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 MARCIE 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 MARCIE' 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).

MARCIE versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for MARCIE 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 MARCIE to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  MARCIE LTSMin Both tools   MARCIE LTSMin
Computed OK 57 427 335   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 298 521
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 626 0 1 Times tool wins 184 635


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

MARCIE versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for MARCIE 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 MARCIE to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  MARCIE LoLA Both tools   MARCIE LoLA
Computed OK 5 607 387   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 128 871
Error detected 0 5 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 608 1 19 Times tool wins 128 871


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

MARCIE versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for MARCIE 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 MARCIE to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  MARCIE Tapaal Both tools   MARCIE Tapaal
Computed OK 57 428 335   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 241 579
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 627 0 0 Times tool wins 224 596


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

MARCIE versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for MARCIE and 1019 for ITS-Tools, 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 MARCIE to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

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


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

MARCIE versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2038 runs (1019 for MARCIE 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 MARCIE to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  MARCIE GreatSPN Both tools   MARCIE GreatSPN
Computed OK 169 15 223   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 184 223
Error detected 0 4 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 15 165 612 Times tool wins 207 200


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