fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2015
Bruxelles, Belgium, June 23, 2015
TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) compared to other tools («Stripped» models, ReachabilityFireabilitySimple)
Last Updated
August 19, 2015

Introduction

This page presents how TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityFireabilitySimple 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 TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ)' 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).

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus Cunf

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for Cunf, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to Cunf are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Cunf Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Cunf
Computed OK 97 24 51   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 140 137 Times tool wins 102 70
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 84 16 35 Times tool wins 116 56


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus GreatSPN-Meddly

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for GreatSPN-Meddly, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to GreatSPN-Meddly are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) GreatSPN-Meddly Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) GreatSPN-Meddly
Computed OK 106 15 42   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 23 0 114 Times tool wins 132 31
Error detected 0 83 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 53 84 66 Times tool wins 141 22


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for ITS-Tools, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) ITS-Tools Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 24 97 124   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 111 134
Error detected 0 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 54 111 65 Times tool wins 111 134


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus LoLA2.0

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for LoLA2.0, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to LoLA2.0 are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LoLA2.0 Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LoLA2.0
Computed OK 0 110 148   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 39 219
Error detected 0 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 112 0 7 Times tool wins 68 190


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for LTSMin, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LTSMin Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) LTSMin
Computed OK 1 112 147   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 138 122
Error detected 0 6 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 117 137 2 Times tool wins 121 139


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for Marcie, so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Marcie Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) Marcie
Computed OK 49 68 99   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 137 0 0 Times tool wins 148 68
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 32 150 87 Times tool wins 133 83


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus TAPAAL(MC)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for TAPAAL(MC), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to TAPAAL(MC) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(MC) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(MC)
Computed OK 1 91 147   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 56 183
Error detected 0 1 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 92 1 27 Times tool wins 58 181


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus TAPAAL(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for TAPAAL(SEQ), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to TAPAAL(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(SEQ) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL(SEQ)
Computed OK 0 113 148   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 35 226
Error detected 0 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 113 0 6 Times tool wins 68 193


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart

TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) versus TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 808 runs (404 for TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) and 404 for TAPAAL-OTF(PAR), so there are 404 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) to TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR) Both tools   TAPAAL-OTF(SEQ) TAPAAL-OTF(PAR)
Computed OK 43 17 105   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 137 Times tool wins 91 74
Error detected 0 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 17 36 102 Times tool wins 118 47


On the chart below, denote cases where the two tools did computed a result, denote the cases where at least one tool did not competed, denote the cases where at least one tool did a mistake and denote the cases where at least one tool stated it could not compute a result or timed-out.

memory chart time chart