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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality 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 29 140 173   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 94 248
Error detected 13 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 218 0 0 Times tool wins 56 286


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 2 221 200   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 66 357
Error detected 13 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 208 0 10 Times tool wins 45 378


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 Spot

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

Statistics on the execution
  ITS-Tools Spot Both tools   ITS-Tools Spot
Computed OK 61 95 141   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 131 166
Error detected 13 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 95 74 123 Times tool wins 140 157


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