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

Introduction

This page presents how MARCIE do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireability 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 63 427 336   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 271 555
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 620 0 0 Times tool wins 175 651


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 0 598 399   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 49 948
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 598 0 22 Times tool wins 60 937


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 65 425 334   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 256 0 Times tool wins 119 705
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 618 2 2 Times tool wins 232 592


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 26 340 373   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 66 673
Error detected 0 49 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 378 15 242 Times tool wins 144 595


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 18 230   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 179 238
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 18 169 602 Times tool wins 251 166


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