Changeset 72 for papers

Timestamp:

Mar 23, 2012, 2:57:43 PM (13 years ago)

Author:

syed

Message:

/papers/FDL2012/

File:

• papers/FDL2012/exp_results.tex (modified) (4 diffs)

papers/FDL2012/exp_results.tex

@@ -1 +1 @@
 We have conducted preliminary experiments to tests and compare the performance of our strategy with existing abstraction-refinement technique available in VIS. As our abstraction representation requires fairness constraints, we have chosen the \emph{incremental\_ctl\_verification} abstraction refinement technique as it supports CTL formulas and fairness constraints \cite{PardoHachtel98incremCTLMC} \cite{PardoHachtel97autoAbsMC}. 
 
-We have executed and compared the execution time and the number of refinement iterations for two examples: VCI-PI platform consisting of Virtual Component Interface (VCI), a PI-Bus and VCI-PI protocol converter and a simplified version of a CAN bus platform consisting of 3 nodes and a CAN bus. The results have been obtained on a PC with an AMD Athlon dual-core processor 4450e and 1.8GB of RAM memory.
-
+We have executed and compared the execution time and the number of refinement iterations for two examples: VCI-PI platform consisting of Virtual Component Interface (VCI), a PI-Bus and VCI-PI protocol converter and a simplified version of a CAN bus platform consisting of 3 nodes and a CAN bus. Table \ref{StatsVCI_PI} and Table \ref{StatsCAN_Bus} give the size and the statistics concerning the VCI-PI platform and CAN bus platform respectively. All the values are computed using the \emph{compute\_reach} command with option \emph{-v 1} in VIS except the number of BDD variables, obtained using the \emph{print\_bdd\_stats} command. The experiments have been executed on a PC with an AMD Athlon dual-core processor 4450e and 1.8GB of RAM memory. 
 
 \begin{table*} [ht]
@@ -14 +13 @@
 \midrule
                & 1 Master-1 Slave   & 308 & 599 & 33 442   & 3.64116e+06 & 41.49 \\
- Concrete      & 2 Masters-1 Slave  & 439 & 186 & 75 210   & 73282       & 14.36 \\
+ Concrete      & 2 Masters-1 Slave  & 439 & 186 & 75 210   & 7.3282e+04  & 14.36 \\
   Model        & 4 Masters-1 Slave  & 709 & 408 & 156 657  & 2.15076e+07 & 414.38 \\
                & 4 Masters-2 Slaves & 883 & 597 & 217 797  & 3.22215e+10 & 4064.09 \\
@@ -117 +116 @@
 %\medskip
 
+
+In the following tables: Table \ref{TabVCI_PI} and Table \ref{TabCANBus}, we compare the execution time between our technique (Prop. Selection), incremental\_ctl\_verification (Incremental) and the standard model checking (Standard MC) computed using the \emph{model\_check} command in VIS. For the VCI-PI platform, the global property $\phi_1$ is the type $AF(p=1)*AF(q=1)$ and $\phi_2$ is actually a stronger version of the same formula with $AG(AF(p=1)*AF(q=1))$ whereas for the CAN bus platform, the global property $\phi_3$ is the type $AG(((p'=1)*(q'=1)) -> AF((s = 1)*(r = 1))$ and $\phi_4 = AG(((p'=1)*(q'=1)) -> AG(r' = 0))$. We can see that our technique systematically computes faster than the other two methods and interestingly in the case where the size of the platform increases by adding the more connected components, in contrary to the other two methods, our computation time remains stable.
+
+
 \begin{table} [h]
 %\hspace*{-8mm}
@@ -142 +145 @@
 \medskip
 
-Table 1 shows the... 
-\TODO{Comments about Table 1, Table 2 and conclusion of Experimental Results} 
 
-