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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Known» 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 LTSMin' 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).

LTSMin versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LTSMin and 433 for LoLA, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin LoLA Both tools   LTSMin LoLA
Computed OK 1 110 312   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 129 294
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 9 0 Times tool wins 165 258


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

LTSMin versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LTSMin and 433 for ITS-Tools, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin ITS-Tools Both tools   LTSMin ITS-Tools
Computed OK 140 29 173   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 255 87
Error detected 0 13 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 218 0 Times tool wins 288 54


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

LTSMin versus Spot

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LTSMin and 433 for Spot, so there are 433 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing LTSMin to Spot are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Spot Both tools   LTSMin Spot
Computed OK 86 8 227   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 230 91
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 198 0 Times tool wins 274 47


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