Introduction

This page presents how petrivet do cope efficiently with the StateSpace examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» models.

The next sections will show chart comparing performances in terms of both memory and execution time.The x-axis corresponds to the challenging tool where the y-axes represents petrivet' performances. Thus, points below the diagonal of a chart denote comparisons favorables to the tool while others 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).

petrivet versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for petrivet and 1953 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing petrivet to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where petrivet computed more values than ITS-Tools, denote cases where petrivet computed less values than ITS-Tools, 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.

petrivet wins when points are below the diagonal, ITS-Tools wins when points are above the diagonal.

petrivet versus tedd

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for petrivet and 1953 for tedd, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing petrivet to tedd are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where petrivet computed more values than tedd, denote cases where petrivet computed less values than tedd, 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.

petrivet wins when points are below the diagonal, tedd wins when points are above the diagonal.

petrivet versus TY

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for petrivet and 1953 for TY, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing petrivet to TY are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where petrivet computed more values than TY, denote cases where petrivet computed less values than TY, 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.

petrivet wins when points are below the diagonal, TY wins when points are above the diagonal.

petrivet versus 2025-gold

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for petrivet and 1953 for 2025-gold, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing petrivet to 2025-gold are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed all results without error, denote cases where the two tool did computed the same number of values (but not al values in the examination), denote cases where petrivet computed more values than 2025-gold, denote cases where petrivet computed less values than 2025-gold, 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.

petrivet wins when points are below the diagonal, 2025-gold wins when points are above the diagonal.

petrivet versus BVT-2026

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 3906 runs (1953 for petrivet and 1953 for BVT-2026, so there are 1953 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing petrivet to BVT-2026 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Important: here, petrivet is compared to BVT-2026. It is a good way to check how petrivet compete in terms of resource consomption with the best tools (even virtual). When petrivet is best, the corresponding plots are on the diagonal of the scatter plots chart.

For this tool, there are no real execution so comparisons are useless.