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

Introduction

This page presents how smart do cope efficiently with the StateSpace 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 smart' 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).

smart versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart 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 smart to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart LTSMin Both tools   smart LTSMin
Computed OK 11 14 28   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 16 Times tool wins 39 14
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 4 13 82 Times tool wins 32 21


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

smart versus Tapaal

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart and 153 for Tapaal, 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 smart to Tapaal are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart Tapaal Both tools   smart Tapaal
Computed OK 22 3 17   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 16 Times tool wins 39 3
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 32 85 Times tool wins 31 11


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

smart versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart 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 smart to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart ITS-Tools Both tools   smart ITS-Tools
Computed OK 4 57 35   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 37 59
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 12 49 Times tool wins 30 66


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

smart versus MARCIE

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart and 153 for MARCIE, 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 smart to MARCIE are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart MARCIE Both tools   smart MARCIE
Computed OK 10 26 29   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 38 27
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 14 26 72 Times tool wins 35 30


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

smart versus GreatSPN

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart and 153 for GreatSPN, 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 smart to GreatSPN are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart GreatSPN Both tools   smart GreatSPN
Computed OK 1 56 38   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 33 62
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 36 9 50 Times tool wins 25 70


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

smart versus TINA.tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart and 153 for TINA.tedd, 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 smart to TINA.tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart TINA.tedd Both tools   smart TINA.tedd
Computed OK 7 57 32   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 38 58
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 37 15 49 Times tool wins 30 66


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

smart versus TINA.sift

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 306 runs (153 for smart and 153 for TINA.sift, 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 smart to TINA.sift are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  smart TINA.sift Both tools   smart TINA.sift
Computed OK 23 5 16   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 16 0 0 Times tool wins 38 6
Error detected 12 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 1 47 85 Times tool wins 35 9


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