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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the CTLFireability examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Stripped» 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 ITS-Tools' 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).

ITS-Tools versus LTSMin

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LTSMin Both tools   ITS-Tools LTSMin
Computed OK 29 200 113   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 128 214
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 290 0 0 Times tool wins 92 250


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

ITS-Tools versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 866 runs (433 for ITS-Tools 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 ITS-Tools to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools LoLA Both tools   ITS-Tools LoLA
Computed OK 0 278 142   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 57 363
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 277 0 13 Times tool wins 52 368


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

ITS-Tools versus Tapaal

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Tapaal Both tools   ITS-Tools Tapaal
Computed OK 31 196 111   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 88 250
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 286 2 4 Times tool wins 118 220


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

ITS-Tools versus MARCIE

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools MARCIE Both tools   ITS-Tools MARCIE
Computed OK 17 37 125   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 127 52
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 17 254 Times tool wins 70 109


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

ITS-Tools versus GreatSPN

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools GreatSPN Both tools   ITS-Tools GreatSPN
Computed OK 57 6 85   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 67 81
Error detected 1 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 5 57 285 Times tool wins 79 69


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