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 MARCIE 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 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 866 runs (433 for MARCIE and 433 for LTSMin, 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 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 30 168 145   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 114 229
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 258 0 0 Times tool wins 85 258


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

MARCIE versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for MARCIE 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 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 0 249 175   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 11 413
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 249 0 9 Times tool wins 23 401


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 866 runs (433 for MARCIE 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 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 30 168 145   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 52 291
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 258 0 0 Times tool wins 97 246


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 866 runs (433 for MARCIE 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 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 7 155 168   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 32 298
Error detected 0 17 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 169 4 89 Times tool wins 62 268


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 866 runs (433 for MARCIE 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 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 82 2 93   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 87 90
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 80 256 Times tool wins 98 79


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