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

Introduction

This page presents how Spot do cope efficiently with the LTLCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «Surprise» 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 Spot' 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).

Spot versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for Spot and 153 for LTSMin, so there are 153 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Spot to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Spot LTSMin Both tools   Spot LTSMin
Computed OK 0 54 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 16 0 Times tool wins 18 119
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 70 0 0 Times tool wins 13 124


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

Spot versus LoLA

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for Spot and 153 for LoLA, so there are 153 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Spot to LoLA are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Spot LoLA Both tools   Spot LoLA
Computed OK 0 70 83   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 12 141
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 70 0 0 Times tool wins 28 125


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

Spot versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for Spot and 153 for ITS-Tools, so there are 153 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Spot to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Spot ITS-Tools Both tools   Spot ITS-Tools
Computed OK 13 28 70   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 0 Times tool wins 40 71
Error detected 0 11 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 39 13 31 Times tool wins 47 64


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