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

Introduction

This page presents how ITS-Tools do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality 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 84 74 239   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 223 174
Error detected 17 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 93 0 0 Times tool wins 179 218


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 8 108 315   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 47 384
Error detected 17 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 91 8 2 Times tool wins 45 386


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 84 74 239   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 120 0 Times tool wins 130 267
Error detected 17 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 93 0 0 Times tool wins 172 225


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 155 7 168   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 301 29
Error detected 17 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 169 89 Times tool wins 255 75


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 233 2 90   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 252 73
Error detected 17 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 2 248 91 Times tool wins 269 56


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