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

Introduction

This page presents how LTSMin do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 0 111 313   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 36 388
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 9 0 Times tool wins 40 384


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 Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LTSMin and 433 for Tapaal, 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 Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin Tapaal Both tools   LTSMin Tapaal
Computed OK 0 0 313   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 120 Times tool wins 60 253
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 0 0 Times tool wins 171 142


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 74 84 239   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 173 224
Error detected 0 17 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 93 0 Times tool wins 218 179


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 MARCIE

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LTSMin and 433 for MARCIE, 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 MARCIE are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin MARCIE Both tools   LTSMin MARCIE
Computed OK 168 30 145   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 229 114
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 258 0 Times tool wins 258 85


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 GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for LTSMin and 433 for GreatSPN, 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 GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  LTSMin GreatSPN Both tools   LTSMin GreatSPN
Computed OK 241 23 72   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 120 0 0 Times tool wins 243 93
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 336 0 Times tool wins 255 81


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