fond
Model Checking Contest @ Petri Nets 2016
6th edition, Toruń, Poland, June 21, 2016
ITS-Tools compared to other tools («All» models, ReachabilityCardinality)
Last Updated
June 30, 2016

Introduction

This page presents how Tapaal(EXP) do cope efficiently with the ReachabilityCardinality examination face to the other participating tools. In this page, we consider «All» 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(EXP)' 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(EXP) versus ITS-Tools

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for ITS-Tools, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to ITS-Tools are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) ITS-Tools Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) ITS-Tools
Computed OK 270 207 568   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 604 441
Error detected 2 7 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 407 0 Times tool wins 443 602


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

Tapaal(EXP) versus LoLa

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for LoLa, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to LoLa are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) LoLa Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) LoLa
Computed OK 3 12 835   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 270 580
Error detected 2 2 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 11 2 1 Times tool wins 58 792


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

Tapaal(EXP) versus LTSMin

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for LTSMin, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to LTSMin are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) LTSMin Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) LTSMin
Computed OK 0 14 838   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 668 184
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 12 0 0 Times tool wins 290 562


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

Tapaal(EXP) versus Tapaal(PAR)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Tapaal(PAR), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Tapaal(PAR) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(PAR) Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(PAR)
Computed OK 170 2 668   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 570 270
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 170 12 Times tool wins 433 407


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

Tapaal(EXP) versus Marcie

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Marcie, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Marcie are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Marcie Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Marcie
Computed OK 396 86 442   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 337 0 0 Times tool wins 707 217
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 649 12 Times tool wins 610 314


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

Tapaal(EXP) versus PeCan

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for PeCan, so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to PeCan are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) PeCan Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) PeCan
Computed OK 462 1 376   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 588 251
Error detected 1 250 1   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 212 12 Times tool wins 527 312


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

Tapaal(EXP) versus Tapaal(SEQ)

Some statistics are displayed below, based on 2378 runs (1189 for Tapaal(EXP) and 1189 for Tapaal(SEQ), so there are 1189 plots on each of the two charts). Each execution was allowed 1 hour and 16 GByte of memory. Then performance charts comparing Tapaal(EXP) to Tapaal(SEQ) are shown (you may click on one graph to enlarge it).

Statistics on the execution
  Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(SEQ) Both tools   Tapaal(EXP) Tapaal(SEQ)
Computed OK 85 2 753   Smallest Memory Footprint
Do not compete 0 0 337 Times tool wins 612 228
Error detected 2 0 0   Shortest Execution Time
Cannot Compute + Time-out 0 85 12 Times tool wins 409 431


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